ft.a  tl  1920 


BS  2415 

.G7  1919 

Graves , 

Frank 

Pierrepont , 

1869- 

What  did 

Jesus 

teach? 

WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH  ? 


OTHER  BOOKS  BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 


A  HISTORY  OF  EDUCATION  IN  THREE 
VOLUMES 

Vol.     I.  Before  the  Middle  Ages 

Vol.   n.  During    the  Middle    Ages   and    the 

Transition  to  Modern  Times 
Vol.  III.  In  Modern  Times 

GREAT  EDUCATORS  OF  THREE  CENTURIES 
PETER   RAMUS    AND   THE   EDUCATIONAL 

REFORMATION    OF    THE    SIXTEENTH 

CENTURY 
A  STUDENT»S  HISTORY  OF  EDUCATION 


WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH  ? 

AN  EXAMINATION  OF  THE  EDUCATIONAL 
MATERIAL  AND  METHOD  OF  THE  MASTER 


BY        y 

FRANK  PIERREPONT  GRAVES 


m 


^EB  >..t  1920 


(PH.D.,  COLUMBIA) 
DEAN  OF  THE  SCHOOL  OF  EDUCATION,  UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


Nrttt  fork 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

1919 

All  rights  reserved 


CopysiGBT,  1919 
By  the  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.     Published  November,  1919. 


TO 

EDGAR  FAHS  SMITH,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 
Provost  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 

WHOSE  ADMINISTRATION  HAS   BEEN  MASKED 
BY  A  DEEP  INTESEST  IN  SELIGIOUS  BDUCATIOH 


PREFACE 

During  the  recent  turmoil  and  strife  existing  through- 
out the  civilized  world,  it  was  often  asked  whether  Chris- 
tianity has  not  failed.  To  answer  this  question,  we  must 
first  understand  what  constitutes  Christianity.  The 
present  would,  therefore,  seem  a  favorable  time  to  study 
anew  the  teachings  of  the  Founder  of  that  religion, 
stripped  of  the  accretions  that  subsequent  time  has  gath- 
ered around  them.  Acting  upon  this  belief,  the  Christian 
Association  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  recently 
started  a  campaign  to  induce  at  least  two  thousand 
students  to  read  during  the  Lenten  period  the  life  and 
sayings  of  Jesus  as  presented  in  their  simplest  form  by 
the  book  of  Mark.    The  first  announcement  of  the 

course  read: 

"Christianity  =  x -f  y 
y  =  'isms' 
This  is  an  equation,  not  an  identity." 

After  this  statement  of  the  equation  had  been  posted 
long  enough  to  arouse  some  curiosity  in  the  student 
body,  the  second  announcement,  which  was  explanatory 
of  the  first,  was  made.    It  read  as  follows: 

"Has  Christianity  failed? 
Or  only  its  '  isms7 
What  did  Jesus  teach?  " 
vii 


Vm  PREFACE 

Those  who  pledged  themselves  to  undertake  this  course 
were  organized  into  seventy-two  discussion  groups.  These 
groups  arranged  to  meet  once  a  week  under  the  direction 
of  a  leader  at  fraternity  houses,  dormitories,  classrooms, 
and  the  conmiittee  rooms  of  the  Houston  (Student's) 
Club.  The  leaders  were  enlisted  from  the  faculty  men, 
Christian  Association  secretaries,  older  students,  and 
extramural  friends  of  the  University,  and  the  conduct 
of  a  normal  class  for  training  the  leaders  was  assigned  to 
me  as  the  representative  of  our  School  of  Education. 

The  study  groups  were  composed  of  Jews,  Catholics, 
Protestants  of  numerous  shades  of  belief,  and  not  a  few 
who  liked  to  call  themselves  agnostics.  It  was  well, 
therefore,  that  it  had  been  planned  to  limit  the  discussion 
to  the  essential  teachings  of  Jesus,  and  to  exclude  as  far 
as  possible  all  extraneous  and  sectarian  matter.  Taken  as 
a  whole,  the  campaign  seems  to  have  been  a  conspicuous 
success.  Even  in  the  normal-training  class  it  was  felt 
by  several  that  a  new  point  of  view  concerning  the  sub- 
ject had  been  developed,  and  that  this  ought  to  be 
published.  It  was  believed  that  the  material  in  printed 
form  might  be  of  service  in  similar  campaigns,  state 
reading-circle  courses,  Chautauquas,  round  tables,  Sim- 
day-school  classes,  and  even  the  programs  of  schools, 
colleges,  and  universities. 

Such  as  they  are,  the  studies  have  been  here  pre- 
sented in  about  the  form  that  they  were  originally  given, 
although  occasionally  additions  and  modifications  have 
been  introduced.  The  title  of  the  course,  which  was 
originally  suggested  by  Professor  James  T.  Young,  and 
most  of  the  topics  for  discussion  have  been  preserved  in 


PREFACE  IX 

the  book.  As  might  be  expected  under  the  circumstances, 
the  work  is  largely  confined  to  the  sources  furnished  by 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  especially  the  gospels. 
Being  untrained  in  theology,  I  have  not  attempted  to 
find  my  way  very  far  into  the  alluring  by-paths  of  exe- 
gesis. The  book  is  simply  the  product  of  a  History 
of  Education  man,  describing  a  well-known  road,  when 
viewed  from  his  own  angle.  As  an  educationalist,  too, 
I  have  inevitably  tended  toward  the  use  of  pedagogical 
devices.  It  is  my  hope  that  the  paragraph  headings, 
the  marginal  notes,  the  summaries  at  the  end  of  the 
chapters,  the  supplementary  readings,  and  the  final  con- 
clusions may  all  be  of  value  in  clarifying  the  text,  making 
it  more  interesting,  and  fixing  it  in  mind. 

All  of  this,  however,  is  not  to  say  that  the  work  is 
entirely  original.  Numerous  standard  books  that  have 
been  written  upon  the  teachings  of  Jesus  were  open  to 
me,  and  I  have  not  hesitated  to  read  and  borrow  from 
many.  To  render  the  sources  more  intelligible  and  real 
to  the  modem  mind,  I  have,  with  the  permission  of  its 
publishers  (Fleming  H.  Revell  Company),  made  prac- 
tically all  citations  from  The  Twentieth  Century  New 
Testament,  Several  persons  acquainted  with  the  mod- 
em study  of  the  Bible  have  been  kind  enough  to  read 
through  the  completed  manuscript  and  to  eliminate  ob- 
vious errors  and  offer  most  helpful  suggestions.  Among 
these  martyrs  to  the  cause  of  friendship  I  take  pleasure 
in  recording  my  colleague.  Professor  Arthur  J.  Jones; 
Reverend  M.  Willard  Lampe,  Ph.D.,  Secretary  for  the 
Presbyterian  Students,  Christian  Association  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania;  Dr.  Edwin  E.  Slosson,  a  former 


X  PREFACE 

Colleague,  now  Literary  Editor  of  The  Independent;  and 
Reverend  Howard  M.  Stuckert,  M.A.,  Rector  of  the 
Church  of  the  Holy  Comforter,  Philadelphia,  and  Assist- 
ant in  History  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  Mr. 
Stuckert  has  also  furnished  me  with  charts  illustrating 
the  synoptic  problem,  and  has  endeavored  to  guide  me 
through  the  eschatological  mazes  of  the  apocalyptic  writ- 
ings. None  of  these  gentlemen,  however,  should  be  held 
responsible  for  my  failure  to  accept  their  advice  upon 
mooted  questions,  or  for  the  actual  errors  that  have 
probably  crept  into  this  book.  I  have  also  been  aided, 
as  usual,  by  the  painstaking  assistance  of  my  wife,  Helen 
Wadsworth  Graves. 

F.P.G. 
Philadelphia,  August  i,  1919. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGB 

I.  Historical  Sources  for  the  Teachings  of 

Jesus i 

II.  Jesus  as  a  Teacher 33 

III.  Jesus'  Methods  of  Teaching 50 

IV.  Jesus'  Idea  of  God 73 

V.  Jesus'  Idea  of  Man 95 

VI.  Jesus'  Conception  of  the  Ideals  and  Recon- 
struction OF  Life 106 

VII.  The    Teaching    of    Jesus    Concerning    the 

Future 124 

VIII.  Jesus'  Teaching  Concerning  the  Kingdom  and 

THE  Church 142 

DC.  Jesus  and  Modern  Society 154 

Conclusions — What  Did  Jesus  Teach? 180 

Bibliography 183 


XI 


WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 
CHAPTER  I 

HISTORICAL  SOURCES  FOR  THE  TEACHINGS  OF  JESUS 

The  Historical  Method  of  Approach.  —  Is  Jesus  a 
myth?  Or  is  he  to  be  regarded  as  historic?  If  we  be- 
Ueve  in  his  historicity,  we  should  wish  to  study  him  in 
the  light  of  history.  If  his  lecorded  teachings  appeal  to 
us,  we  should  approach  them  by  historical  methods.  To 
gain  an  adequate  idea  of  his  life  and  teaching,  then,  we 
must  resort  to  the  primary  sources.  As  in  all  other  his- 
torical study,  we  should  carefully  examine  the  docu- 
ments bearing  upon  the  subject,  influenced  as  little  as 
possible  by  personal  bias  or  tradition.  It  would  also  mentif^d^tS 
seem  essential  to  learn  something  of  the  writers  of  the 
documents,  that  we  may  allow  for  the  temperament, 
previous  experience,  point  of  view,  and  purpose  of  each, 
and,  comparing  their  statements,  strike  a  proper  balance 
between  them.  In  this  way  only  can  we  hope  to  arrive 
at  the  truth. 

Such  a  procedure,  however,  has  not  always  been  as 
common  as  it  should  be.  We  often  treat  the  historical 
material  relating  to  this  important  subject  with  a  cock- 
sureness  amounting  to  flippancy,  such  as  would  not  be 
tolerated  in  historical  research  elsewhere.  So  strong 
are  our  traditions,  prejudices,  and  emotions  in  matters 


writers  is  Deeded. 


2  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

relating  to  our  religious  life  and  the  faith  of  our  fathers 
that  we  are  all  too  likely  to  cling  tenaciously  to  outworn 
conceptions,  or  else,  rushing  to  the  opposite  extreme, 
impatiently  fling  the  whole  accumulation  aside  as  worth- 
less or  inextricable.  There  are,  in  consequence,  two 
definite  attitudes  of  hostility  toward  an  historical  inves- 
uid?s^°that  *are  ligation  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus.  The  first  is  revealed 
unsatwactory.  ^^  ^j^g  position  of  the  man  who  holds  that  the  writings 
are  mechanically  inspired  and  must  be  taken  at  their 
face  value  — verbatim  et  litteratim.  The  other  view  is 
the  diametrical  opposite.  It  absolutely  rejects  the  his- 
toricity of  the  Nazarene  and  indiscriminately  brands  every 
writing  upon  the  subject  as  a  myth  or  even  a  pious  fraud. 
Neither  attitude  is  in  keeping  with  historical  method,  and 
both  seem  weak.  While  polar  in  their  position,  the  advo- 
cates of  these  theories  are  equally  dogmatic  in  their  as- 
sumptions, and  hold  to  the  same  underlying  fallacy,  that 
truth  can  be  found  without  effort  or  travail  of  soul. 

Rejection  of  Historicity.  —  Possibly  the  latter  view- 
point may  be  considered  a  negative  reaction  to  the 
former,  but  surely  such  a  radical  departure  cannot  be 
justified.  The  fact  that  certain  literalists  are  able  to 
absorb  any  contradiction  or  irrationaUty  that  arises  with 
Jec4n^ of^  hk-  the  aid  of  the  capsule  they  misname  "faith,"  does  not 
wSrantedf  °°^  Warrant  the  conclusion  that  the  edible  and  nutritious 
portions  of  the  narratives  should  likewise  be  petulantly 
cast  to  the  winds.  It  is  dijSicult  to  understand  the  mental 
processes  of  a  man  who  shows  Httle  hesitation  about 
accepting  extremely  doubtful  or  hazy  data  concerning 
Savonarola,  Charlemagne,  and  Julius  Caesar,  or  even 
Alfred,  Cleopatra,  and  Diogenes,  but,  through  his  antip- 


HISTORICAL   SOURCES   FOR   THE   TEACHINGS   OF  JBSUS      3 

athy  to  credulity,  rejects  with  small  exception  the  facts 
concerning  Jesus,  which  can  obtain  such  abundant  sup- 
port and  confirmation  from  historical  sources.  It  would 
certainly  be  only  rational  for  him  to  enlarge  his  vision 
and  apply  the  winnow  of  historical  criticism  to  the  ma- 
terial at  hand.  It  may  take  longer,  but  is  it  not  fairer 
and  worth  the  trial? 

Verbal  Inspiration.  —  On  the  other  hand,  the  path  of 
the  verbal  inspirationist  is  beset  with  insuperable  difii- 
culties.  He  must  perforce  admit  that  the  material  has 
come  down  to  him  strained  through  two  media  at  least. 
Jesus  himself  wrote  nothing.    He  spoke  the  truth  as  it  ?•  Nor  is  verbal 

•f  ox  inspiration,  be- 

appeared  to  him  and  trusted  to  its  inherent  power  to  ^l^^^^^^  "'^'' 
preserve  it.  Hence,  with  the  possible  exception  of  six 
words — talitha  cumi,  used  in  healing  the  ruler's  daughter, 
and  Eloi,  Eloi,  lama  sabachthani,  the  cry  from  the  cross  — 
few  would  claim  that  the  exact  phraseology  of  Jesus 
has  been  recorded.  Jesus  apparently  spoke  in  the  Pal- 
estinian dialect  of  Hebrew  known  as  "Aramaic,"  but 
the  earliest  complete  report  of  his  words  and  teachings 
has  come  down  to  us  in  the  Greek  of  the  day,  and  only 
after  the  lapse  of  centuries  was  it  turned  into  English. 
Our  English  New  Testament,  therefore,  is  at  best  a 
translation  of  a  translation.  It  contains  in  the  first  in- 
stance many  peculiarities  and  accretions  from  the  minds 
of  the  reporters,  and  in  the  second  instance  the  texts 
from  which  the  English  versions  have  been  made  were 
variant  and  very  doubtful  in  parts.  Obviously  we  can 
not,  in  our  interpretation,  place  the  emphasis  necessary 
to  satisfy  the  literalist  upon  the  form  or  order  in  which 
the  words  of  Jesus  now  appear. 


4  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

The  accuracy  of  the  records,  too,  must  have  been 
considerably  affected  by  the  length  of  time  that  elapsed 
before  the  teachings  of  Jesus  were  put  into  writing 
at  all.    While  Jesus  was  still  with  them,  and  even 

lapse  01  time,  •'  ^  ^      ^ 

for  a  quarter  of  a  century  after  his  death,  the  disciples 
had  little  reason  to  write  down  any  account  of  his  words 
and  teachings,  as  these  were  impressed  upon  the  mem- 
ories of  all  by  constant  contact  with  the  Master,  and 
by  frequent  repetition  of  his  principles  in  their  teaching. 
But  as  the  original  Twelve  began  to  pass  away,  and 
Christianity  spread  far  beyond  the  confines  of  Pales- 
tine, it  became  necessary  for  the  new  generation  to  re- 
enforce  their  memory  with  written  accounts,  and  to 
utilize  the  record  thus  made  for  instructing  others  in  the 
words  and  deeds  of  Jesus.  And  during  the  period  that 
intervened  between  the  utterance  of  these  teachings  and 
their  crystallization  in  written  form,  there  was  every 
opportunity  for  large  modifications  and  additions  to  slip 
in  as  they  were  handed  down  by  word  of  mouth.  There 
modifications  by  is  plain  cvideucc  in  each  of  the  gospels,  especially  the 
reporters,  fourth,  of  a  large  amount  of  material  that  has  been  intro- 

duced through  the  evangelist  editor  or  modified  by  the 
lapse  of  time.  This  appears  in  the  form  of  mtroductions, 
explanations,  comments,  transpositions,  and  even  verbal 
changes.  Careful  comparison  of  the  different  writmgs 
and  serious  historical  study  are  everywhere  needed  to  free 
the  primitive  teachings  of  Jesus  from  the  excursive  and 
modifying  material  with  which  they  are  accompanied. 
Even  then,  if  we  adhere  to  the  surface  of  the  text,  we 
are  liable  to  misunderstand  the  quaint  language  of  the 
Oriental  imagery  of  the  gospels,  and  are  often  in  danger 


HISTORICAL  SOURCES  FOR  THE   TEACHINGS   OF  JESUS      $ 

of  pushing  an  analogy  further  than  was  intended  or 
of  reading  modem  ideas  into  the  ancient  expressions. 
Clearly  we  cannot  be  satisfied  with  the  literal  and  verbal 
interpretation,  though  we  may  thereby  be  saved  much 
intellectual  labor.  "For  the  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit 
giveth  life." 

Furthermore,  he  that  would  take  each  passage  literally, 
inevitably  finds  himself  involved  in  inconsistencies  re- 
sulting from  the  way  in  which  Jesus  promulgated  his 
teachings.  The  Master  talked  informally  with  individ-  ^f^'J^^^^^t^^*;"'^! 
uals  or  groups  as  the  opportunity  arose.  Apparently  the  teachings. 
he  had  no  idea  of  reducing  his  thoughts  to  stereotyped 
doctrines  or  formal  rules  of  conduct.  He  felt  that  he 
was  uttering  that  phase  of  the  truth  that  each  occasion 
demanded,  and  was  not  concerned  with  building  a  sys- 
tem or  supporting  his  position  by  an  appeal  to  logic 
or  learning.  His  ideas  upon  any  single  subject  were 
often  expressed  upon  very  different  occasions,  and,  if 
they  are  taken  separately,  seem  qualifying  or  even  con- 
tradictory. His  utterances  were  never  arranged  in  a 
formal  or  logical  order,  and  a  single  phase  of  truth  is  often 
portrayed  so  forcefully  as  seemingly  to  exhaust  all  his 
thought  upon  the  subject,  until  it  is  found  that  elsewhere 
a  modifying  position  is  expressed  with  equal  emphasis. 
It  is  evident,  then,  that  his  real  attitude  can  be  under- 
stood only  through  a  combination  of  his  different  ideas 
on  the  same  general  theme  {cf.  pp.  114  and  i56f.)-  His 
teachings  are  complementary,  and  in  no  case  should  a 
statement  be  taken  as  final,  when  isolated  from  the  rest 
of  his  thought.  His  ideas  upon  any  point  should  be 
assembled  and  carefully  balanced,  if  we  wish  to  under- 


6  WHAT  Dm  JESUS  TEACH? 

stand  them.  Only  in  this  way  can  a  mass  of  difficulties 
be  resolved,  and  the  one-sided  views  of  literalism,  which 
has  led  to  the  foundation  of  sects  innumerable,  be 
avoided. 

Nor  can  the  advocacy  of  verbal  inspiration  defend 
itself  upon  the  score  of  its  antiquity.  It  seems  not  to 
have  been  current  in  earliest  Christianity.  The  quota- 
tions from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New  by  Jesus  or 
the  early  Christians  were  in  some  instances  obviously 
made  from  memory.  Nor  were  the  gospels  originally 
regarded  as  furnishing  absolute  knowledge  from  a  super- 
natural source,  but  were  considered  to  be  the  natural 
products  of  disciples  desirous  of  recording  the  work  of 
their  Master  as  graphically  as  each  was  able.  Luke 
opens  his  account  of  the  gospel  by  frankly  telling  his 
friend : 

^'Many  attempts  have  been  already  made  to  draw 
up  an  account  of  those  events  which  have  reached  their 
conclusion  among  us,  just  as  they  were  reported  to  us 
by  those  who  from  the  beginning  were  eyewitnesses,  and 
afterwards  became  bearers  of  the  Message.  And,  there- 
fore, I  also,  since  I  have  investigated  all  these  events 
with  great  care  from  their  very  beginning,  have  resolved 
to  write  a  connected  history  of  them  for  you,  in  order 
that  you  may  be  able  to  satisfy  yourseK  of  the  accuracy 
of  the  story  which  you  have  heard  from  the  lips  of  others  " 
(Luke  I,  1-4). 

In  other  words,  Luke  does  not  lay  claim  to  any  super- 
verbai  inspira-    natural  aid,  but  declares  that,  in  accordance  with  the 

tion  was  not  '  ' 

eS?  chri-"    practice  of  other  chroniclers  of  the  good  news,  he  had 
tians.  weighed  carefully  and  critically  all  the  sources  he  could 


HISTORICAL  SOURCES   FOR  THE   TEACHINGS   OF  JESUS      7 

find,  as  he  did  not  hold  any  of  them  to  be  entirely  satis- 
factory. Such  undoubtedly  was  also  the  view  and  method 
of  procedure  of  Matthew  and  Mark.  Even  a  hasty 
inspection  of  their  writings  shows  that  they,  like  Luke, 
used  the  materials  at  hand  freely,  though  with  dis- 
cernment and  selection.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  state- 
ment of  Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis  in  Phrygia,  just 
before  the  middle  of  the  second  century  of  our  era,  that 
"Mark,  having  become  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote 
down  with  accuracy,  but  not  in  chronological  order,  what- 
soever he  remembered  of  the  events  of  Jesus'  hfe;  this 
he  did  from  information  given  him  by  Peter,  for  he 
was  not  himself  an  eyewitness."  (See  Eusebius,  Church 
History,  III,  39.)  In  fact,  so  far  from  thinking  of  the 
gospels  as  infallible,  Papias  tells  us,  as  we  might  expect, 
that  he  did  not  get  as  reliable  information  from  these 
accounts  as  he  did  from  the  traditions  of  those  who 
had  been  in  personal  contact  with  the  first  disciples. 
Justin  Marytr  (i  10-165  a.d.)  likewise  implies  that 
the  gospels  are  the  products  of  human  intelligence  by 
referring  to  them  as  "recollections."  And  a  similar  es- 
timate is  indicated  by  a  number  of  other  Church  Fathers 
almost  up  to  the  close  of  the  second  century.  Clement 
of  Rome,  Polycarp,  Ignatius,  and  others  frequently  cite 
the  sayings  of  Jesus  from  the  evangelists  without  men- 
tioning any  source,  and  also  quote  other  sayings  not  in 
our  gospels.  It  is  evident  that,  if  they  were  acquainted 
with  the  gospels,  they  did  not  care  to  mention  them  as 
absolute  authority  for  their  statements.  Shortly  after- 
ward, however,  a  new  attitude  began  to  arise  of  regarding 
all  the  statements  of  the  four  evangelists  as  supernatural. 


8  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

equally  infallible,  and  in  complete  harmony.  This  com- 
fortable assurance  gradually  developed  during  the  next 
century  or  two,  until  by  the  time  of  the  Middle  Ag3S 
they  were  viewed  as  four  necessary  aspects  of  a  single 
gospel  established  by  divine  decree. 

And,  despite  the  obvious  attitude  of  the  evangelists 
themselves,  this  naive  and  uncritical  view  has  largely 
prevailed  in  Christianity  until  modem  biblical  scholar- 
ship began  to  develop  toward  the  close  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  and  historical  methods  came  to  be  ap- 
plied to  the  study  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus.  Since  then 
there  has  been  an  enormous  increase  in  the  literature 
produced  upon  the  gospels  from  a  scholarly  point  of 
view.  These  modern  works  uniformly  give  evidence  of 
the  keenest  religious  interest,  but  display  an  attitude  of 
scholastic  freedom.  The  type  of  book  that  takes  the 
traditional  views  for  granted  is  disappearing,  and  in  all 
probability  will  eventually  vanish.  At  any  rate,  it  is  our 
plan  here  to  examine  as  carefully  as  we  can  the  nature 
of  our  historical  sources  for  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  and  to 
allow  for  what  we  know  to  have  been  the  character  and 
viewpoint  of  the  writers. 

Chief  Sources  for  the  Teachings  of  Jesus,  —  The 
chief  sources  for  the  teachings  of  Jesus  are  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament,  especially  the  versions  of  the  gos- 
pel given  us  by  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John  respec- 
tively. The  books  that  make  up  the  New  Testament 
were  gradually  assembled  out  of  a  large  variety  of  works 
produced  by  members  of  the  early  Christian  fellowship. 
The  Canon  that  was  eventually  established  out  of  these 
writings  was  not  selected  with  deliberation  or  upon  any 


HISTORICAL  SOURCES   FOR  THE   TEACHINGS   OF  JESUS     9 

scholarly  basis,  but  was  determined  by  practical  and 
popular  movements.  The  books  that  approved  them- 
selves came  into  general  use  in  the  churches  and  were 
confirmed  as  parts  of  the  Canon  by  the  church  councils. 
Few  writings  of  value,  however,  seem  to  have  been  lost. 

Of  the  gospels  the  first  three  —  Matthew,  Mark,  and 
Luke  —  are  in  essential  agreement  as  to  time,  place,  and 
outline.  They  furnish  a  general  view  of  the  life  and  The  three 
teaching  of  Jesus,  and  so  have  come  to  be  known,  col-  goS*'^ 
lectively,  as  the  "s3aioptic"  gospels.  John  produced  a 
work  of  a  very  different  sort;  as  compared  with  the  syn- 
optic writings,  it  is  supplementary  and  doctrinal.  Mark's 
is  the  earliest  gospel,  and,  while  authorities  differ  some- 
what as  to  date,  it  must  have  been  composed  somewhere 
about  60  to  70  A.D.  Matthew  and  Luke,  both  of  whom 
seem  to  have  been  largely  indebted  to  Mark  for  material, 
wrote  some  fifteen  to  twenty  years  afterward.  Which  of 
the  two  was  the  earlier  is  somewhat  in  doubt.  The  gos- 
pel of  John  came  much  later  than  either,  after  the  apos-  and  the  fourth 
tolic  period  of  Christianity  had  passed,  and  is  usually 
dated  somewhere  between  100  and  no  a.d. 

The  Sayings  of  Jesus.  —  Before  discussing  each  of  the 
gospels  in  detail,  however,  it  will  be  well  to  examine  the 
nature  and  importance  of  some  books  produced  by  the 
Christian  fellowship  somewhat  prior  to  them.    It  should  Matthew  and 
be  noted  first  that  Matthew  and  Luke  bear  evidence  of  f;Sm  nlrraid 
having  borrowed  also  from  some  even  earlier  books  than  bgT  of  jesuT 
that  of  Mark.     After  subtracting  the  narrative  judged 
to  have  been  taken  from  Mark,  we  find  that  about  one- 
sixth  of  the  subject-matter  of  these  gospels  appears  to  be 
largely  the  same,  word  for  word,  in  the  two.    But  appar- 


lO  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

ently  Matthew  did  not  furnish  a  copy  for  Luke,  since  the 
material  in  Chapters  V-VII  of  the  former  is  distributed 
throughout  the  whole  work  of  the  latter  at  more  appro- 
priate points,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  is  it  likely  that 
Matthew  would  have  borrowed  from  Luke  and  over- 
looked in  that  writer  so  many  of  the  Sayings  of  Jesus, 
of  which  he  was  particularly  fond.  The  only  other  possi- 
bility is  that  both  copied  from  a  still  older  source.  This 
hypothetical  work  was  formerly  referred  to  as  Matthew's 
Logia  ("oracles")  or  The  Sayings  of  Jesus,  but  is  now 
denominated  Q  (Germ.  Qwe/Ze,'' source")  by  most  schol- 
ars .  Matthew  and  Luke  were  apparently  acquainted  with 
this  work  in  a  Greek  edition,  as  the  order  of  words  in  each 
of  these  gospels  is  that  of  the  Greek,  but  since  there  are 
some  variants  in  the  two  texts,  the  assertion  of  Papias 
(Eusebius,  Church  History,  III,  39)  that  the  work  had 
been  originally  written  in  Aramaic,  the  dialect  used  by 
Jesus,  seems  plausible,  and  it  may  be  that  Matthew  and 
Luke  used  different  translations  from  each  other.  Some 
scholars  now  think  it  not  unlikely  that  Mark  also  had 
access  to  the  work  in  some  form  or  other. 

This  source  book  seems  to  have  been  gathered  shortly 
after  the  death  of  Jesus,  about  35  a.d.,  when  the  disciples 
were  first  going  out  to  preach.  It  may  well  have  been 
collected  by  the  apostolic  band  itself,  possibly  even  by 
Matthew  alone,  as  Papias  tells  us.  (See  Eusebius, 
Church  History,  III,  39.  Irenaeus  makes  a  similar 
explanation  in  his  treatise.  Against  Heresies,  III,  i, 
I.)  It  included  all  the  basal  teachings  of  Jesus,  such  as 
his  idea  of  God  as  Father,  his  view  of  man's  sonship,  his 
conception  of  life's  ideals,  and  the  vision  of  his  Messiah- 


HISTORICAL  SOURCES  FOR  THE  TEACHINGS  OF  JESUS      II 

ship.  The  material  may  have  included  some  narrative, 
although  it  was  formerly  supposed  to  be  only  a  collec- 
tion of  sayings.  It  certainly  furnished  vivid  glimpses  Sve!"  Sl^'Sd 
of  the  life  and  ministry  of  Jesus,  which  were  the  more  ^™^^^°'^^  ^• 
trustworthy  as  documentary  evidence  just  because  they 
were  evidently  so  unintentional  and  incidental.  Such  a 
primitive  treatment  naturally  showed  greater  simplicity 
in  dealing  with  the  person  of  Jesus  and  the  supernatural, 
and  it  attempted  no  interpretations  of  the  teachings. 
This  work,  then,  as  now  included  in  Matthew,  Luke,  and 
possibly  Mark,  should  rank  high  as  source  material. 

The  Epistles  of  Paul.  —  But  not  only  were  the  gospels 
antedated  by  this  book  no  longer  extant,  but  certain  of 
the  existing  Epistles  of  Paul,  some  six  in  number,  were  ^^  ^{  p^^j,, 
Hkewise  produced  before  them.  Paul,  rather  than  the  oidef  Ihia  ^the 
evangelists,  is  to  be  considered  the  first  Christian  witness.  ^°^p^^- 
He  wrote  the  first  books  of  the  New  Testament  some- 
where about  50  A.D.  As  this  must  have  been  a  decade  or 
two  before  the  earliest  gospel,  it  is  evident  that  the 
Canon  is  not  usually  printed  in  historic  order,  although 
texts  of  this  kind  have  been  published  (see  p.  28  f.).  The 
works  of  Paul  make  little  direct  reference  to  the  teaching 
of  Jesus,  and,  while  he  does  tell  considerable  about  him, 
the  facts  are  little  related  to  each  other.  His  main  em- 
phasis is  upon  the  heavenly  Christ,  and  he  apparently  re- 
garded the  earthly  life  of  Jesus  as  relatively  unimportant. 
Hence  he  generalizes  "  For  I  determined  not  to  know  any- 
thing among  you,  save  Jesus  Christ,  and  him  crucified." 
Paul's  nature  was  intensely  religious  and  mystic.  He  was, 
however,  practical,  rugged,  strong,  and  simple,  and,  while 
well  trained  in  the  rabbinical  school  of  Gamaliel,  his  lit- 


12  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

erary  style  has  more  power  than  polish.  He  was  the 
first  disciple  to  see  the  possibility  of  making  Christianity 
a  religion  for  the  whole  world,  rather  than  a  mere  sect  of 
Judaism,  and  he  showed  himself  a  most  uncompromising 
advocate  of  that  conception  both  in  his  own  activities 
and  in  the  councils  of  the  brethren.  He  did  not  hesitate 
to  upbraid  the  vacillating  Peter  and  other  conservative 
disciples  on  this  issue,  and  to  charge  them  with  incon- 
sistency (see  p.  150).  The  vigorous  closing  words  of  his 
life  are  most  characteristic  of  him:  *'I  have  fought  the 
good  fight,  I  have  finished  the  course,  I  have  kept  the 
faith.'' 

A  collection  of  the  Sayings  of  Jesus,  then,  had  been 
made  a  generation  before  the  gospels  were  written,  and 
Paul  had  likewise  indicated  some  of  the  events  of  the 
Master's  life.  But  the  chief  purpose  of  the  Sayings  and 
the  Epistles  had  not  been  to  record  history,  and  there 
still  remained  the  need  of  a  systematic  chronicle  of  the 
life,  ministry,  and  principles  of  Jesus.  This  demand  of 
primitive  Christianity,  four  well-known  writers,  among 
others,  endeavored  to  supply  by  their  versions  of  what 
has  been  known,  ever  since  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr, 
165  A.D.  (see  First  Apology,  66),  as  the  "gospel "  or  good 
news. 

The  Gospel  according  to  Mark.  —  The  earliest  of 
these  accounts,  as  has  already  been  suggested  (p.  7), 
is  that  obtained  largely  from  the  recollections  of  Peter 
by  his  youthful  friend,  Mark.  Not  only  have  we  the 
word  of  Papias  (Eusebius,  Church  History,  IH,  39)  and 
Irenaeus  {Against  Heresies,  HI,  i,  7)  for  this  chief  origin 
of  the  gospel  of  Mark,   but  the  hypothesis  is  sup- 


HISTORICAL  SOURCES  FOR  THE  TEACHINGS  OF  JESUS      I3 

ported  by  internal  evidence  in  the  graphic  personal 

incidents  suggesting  the  recollections  of  an  eyewitness. 

The  great  apostle  seems  to  have  spent  much  time  in  the  ^^iest^'^o^s  e^^ 

home  of  Mary,  the  mother  of  Mark,  at  Jerusalem,  which  recSieSons?- 

served  as  the  earhest  Christian  church,  and  in  turn  the 

young  man  probably  visited  Peter  frequently  in  his 

home  at  Capernaum.    Mark,  however,  who  is  generally 

known  in  Acts  and  some  of  the  Epistles  by  his  Hebrew 

name  of  John,  must  have  used  other  sources  for  the  life 

and  work  of  Jesus.    He  seems  to  have  had  recourse  for 

material  to  some  document  containing  a  group  of  parables 

and  various  oral  traditions  —  not  improbably  the  book 

on  the  Sayings  of  Jesus  —  as  well  as  to  the  accounts  of 

Peter. 

Great  interest  in  the  cause  and  spread  of  Christianity 
is  evident  in  the  hfe  of  Mark,  as  well  as  in  his  writing. 
He  was  a  cousin  ^  of  Barnabas,  and  went  with  that 
leader  and  Paul  on  their  first  great  missionary  tour.  Be- 
cause of  his  defection  at  Perga  in  Pamphylia  (Acts  XIII, 
5  and  13)  and  return  to  Jerusalem,  Paul  and  Barnabas 
afterward  quarreled  and  separated  in  their  work,  when 
the  latter  proposed  taking  him  back  (Acts  XV,  32-40). 
But  later  on  (Colossians  IV,  10)  Mark  apparently  made 
his  peace  with  the  doughty  disciple.  There  seems  like- 
wise to  have  been  a  tradition  to  the  effect  that  Mark  was 
the  young  man  clad  in  a  linen  cloth  who  followed  after 
Jesus  at  the  time  of  his  arrest  and  was  almost  taken  into 
custody  himself.  His  identity  in  this  incident  is  confirmed 
by  the  fact  that  from  that  time  on  Mark's  gospel  gives 

1  The  King  James  Version  translates  as  "  nephew." 


14  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

much  fuller  details  (Chapters  XIV,  53-XVI),  and  from 
the  account  just  preceding  (Chapter  XIII)  the  evangel- 
ist seems  himself  to  have  been  an  eyewitness  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

Mark's  gospel,  then,  was  probably  one  of  those  ac- 
counts alluded  to  in  Luke  (see  p.  6)  as  having  been 
written  not  by  any  of  the  twelve  disciples  themselves, 
but  by  others  who  obtained  their  information  from  such 
eyewitnesses,  and  in  turn  afforded  part  of  the  material 
for  Luke's  own  work.  The  book  of  Mark  is  very  prim- 
itive in  comparison  with  that  of  Matthew  and  Luke, 
who  so  added  to  and  refined  upon  him.  It  deals  only 
with  the  period  of  Jesus'  ministry,  and  does  not  include 
the  detailed  account  of  his  genealogy  and  miraculous 
birth,  the  flight  into  Egypt,  and  other  matter  extraneous 
to  the  real  work  of  the  Master.  It  fails  to  record  most 
of  the  parables  and  sayings  that  were  afterward  narrated. 
It  is  crude  and  awkward  in  style,  and  contains  an  un- 
mistakable Palestinian  tinge  in  its  choice  of  words  and 
its  constructions. 

But  while  Matthew  affords  a  much  more  literary  work, 
with  all  the  beautiful  sayings  of  Jesus,  and  Luke  a  far 
more  scientific  account,  containing  a  larger  number  of 
the  Master's  remarkable  parables,  the  gospel  of  Mark 
excels  them  both  in  spirit  and  graphicness.  It  furnishes 
us  with  a  set  of  apostolic  memoirs,  plain  and  unvarn- 
ished. Its  first-hand  pictures  and  impressions  of  Jesus 
are  without  color  or  idealization.  It  often  shows  him 
tired  or  out  of  patience,  and  very  human  indeed.  It 
depicts  Jesus  as  a  conqueror  of  all  Satanic  powers,  and 
adds  greatly  to  his  heroic  stature  and  appeal    The 


HISTORICAL  SOURCES  FOR  THE  TEACHINGS  OF  JESUS      15 

narrative  is  brief  and  vivid.  Event  follows  event,  and  the 
use  of  the  **  historical  present"  shows  the  rapidity  and 
completeness  of  his  achievements,  and  graphically  re- 
counts the  triumph  of  Jesus  over  death  and  his  exaltation 
to  glory.  While  rude  and  primitive  in  form,  Mark  fur- 
nishes us  with  more  valuable  source  material  than  does 
any  of  the  other  gospels. 

Matthew  and  Luke  appear  to  have  depended  for  their 
structure  and  most  of  their  material  upon  Mark,  al- 
though, as  already  seen  (p.  9  f.),  both  drew  a  considerable 
amount  directly  from  the  now  lost  Sayings  of  Jesus. 
Each  of  them,  moreover,  made  such  changes,  combina-  Luke  Idapted 
tions,  and  arrangements  in  the  material  as  best  suited  to'^fhelr^TO" 
the  purpose  to  which  they  wished  to  put  it.  Luke  has 
more  actual  omissions  and  interpolations,  and  Matthew 
more  transpositions.  The  chief  reasons  for  these  varia- 
tions from  the  sources  in  both  writers  were  connected 
with  their  desire  to  adapt  the  narrative  to  the  particular 
public  to  which  each  sought  to  appeal,  to  avoid  state- 
ments that  might  prove  offensive  to  the  developing  sen- 
timent of  Christianity,  or  to  put  the  narrative  into  better 
literary  form.  Both  seem  also  to  have  used  other  sources 
to  some  extent.  The  records  they  give  of  the  genealogy 
and  the  infancy  of  Jesus  certainly  are  not  in  Mark,  and 
could  hardly  have  been  included  in  the  Sayings  of  Jesus. 
There  seems,  however,  to  have  been  no  interdependence 
between  Matthew  and  Luke,  except  as  they  were  mu- 
tually dependent  on  Mark  and  the  Sayings  of  Jesus. 
Their  accounts  of  the  genealogy  and  infancy  of  Jesus  and 
of  his  appearance  in  Nazareth,  which  each  has  taken 
from  other  sources,  differ  widely. 


l6  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

The  Gospel  according  to  Matthew.  —  Matthew,  at 
the  time  of  his  call  to  discipleship,  was  known  as  Levi,  a 
"publican,"  who  had  been  stationed  at  the  head  of  the 
Sea  of  Galilee,  to  collect  the  imperial  taxes.  This  gospel 
is  ecclesiastical  and  represents  a  polemic  attitude  to- 
Matthew  is        Ward  Judaism.   It  details  the  descent  of  Jesus  from  David 

ecclesiastical;  '' 

represents  a       aud  Abraham  and  emphasizes  the  events  of  Jesus'  life 

polemic  attitude  ^  *' 

toward  Judaism,  ^^  ^  complctlon  of  thc  Jcwish  prophecies.  In  the  early 
chapters,  the  phrase  "in  order  that  it  might  be  fulfilled'' 
constantly  recurs.  Yet  it  does  not  attempt  to  Judaize, 
for  it  caustically  criticises  the  formal  piety  of  the  Phar- 
isees and  repeatedly  stresses  the  tone  of  universal  appli- 
cation in  Jesus'  teachings.  It  even  seeks  to  introduce  a 
large  amount  of  the  supernatural  element  into  his  life, 
such  as  walking  upon  the  water  and  the  miraculous 
finding  of  a  coin  in  the  mouth  of  a  fish. 

Moreover,  this  gospel,  though  given  first  in  the  Testa- 
ment, is  peculiar  in  incorporating  some  of  the  doctrinal 
tendencies  of  the  Christian  Church,  or  Catholic  move- 
ment, that  were  developing  after  the  earliest  period. 
This  is  especially  seen  in  the  incident  upon  which  the 
theory  of  Peter's  leadership  is  based  (Matthew  XVI,  i8  f .), 
which  did  not  appear  at  all  in  Mark's  narration  of  the 
events  at  Caesarea  Philippi  (Mark  VII,  29).  In  other 
words,  while  the  Jewish  antecedents  of  Christianity  are 
stressed  in  Matthew,  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  revealing 
and  hei  htens  J^^^^  ^^  the  Mcssiah  loug  forctold,  and  of  heightening 
if^suT"^'''^  his  personality.  The  book  appears  to  have  been  pro- 
duced in  a  more  doctrinal  and  less  primitive  day  than 
those  of  the  early  fellowship.  Hence,  if  we  are  to  trust 
the  statements  of  Papias  and  Irenaeus  (see  p.  10)  that 


HISTORICAL  SOURCES  FOR  THE  TEACHINGS  OF  JESUS      1 7 

Matthew  wrote  the  Sayings  of  Jesus,  we  can  hardly  sup- 
pose that  the  first  gospel  in  its  present  form  was  also  the 
unmodified  product  of  that  apostle.  Apart  from  the 
introductory  chapters  (I  and  II),  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  (V-VTI),  the  instruction  to  the  Twelve  (X),  and 
the  chapter  of  parables  (XIII),  Matthew's  gospel  is 
clearly  based  upon  Mark's,  and  is  even  less  primitive 
than  that  of  Luke.  It  may,  however,  while  modified  and 
incorporated  with  other  material  by  a  later  hand,  have 
received  its  name  from  the  author  of  the  Sayings  of  Jesus, 
which  evidently  served  as  one  of  its  chief  sources.  This 
would  explain  the  obvious  difference  in  the  production 
of  two  works  ascribed  to  the  same  writer. 

The  Gospel  according  to  Luke.  —  Luke  seems  to  have 
been  the  only  New  Testament  writer  of  gentile  origin. 
Together  with  Epaphras  and  Demas,  he  is  thus  distin- 
guished by  Paul  {Colossians  IV,  12-14)  from  all  his  other 
assistants,  who  were  ''of  the  circumcision."  Paul  also 
speaks  of  Luke  as  "  the  beloved  physician,"  and  he  seems 
to  have  been  the  sole  companion  of  Paul  that  had  re-  Luke's  training 
ceived  a  good  literary  and  scientific  training.  As  we  have 
seen  (p.  6),  he  carefully  collected  and  selected  from  the 
accounts  of  his  predecessors,  and  presented  the  material 
in  a  more  complete,  systematic,  and  polished  fashion. 
It  is  not  improbable  that  his  home  was  at  Antioch,  and 
that  in  his  practice  as  a  physician  and  his  share  in  the 
life  of  the  young  church  at  that  place,  he  obtained  a  rich 

•   t  ./T.I.  1111  j-1        *"**  environ- 

social  experience.    This  would  help  to  account  for  the  ment 
keener  human  interest  and  the  more  intense  sympathy 
with  the  poor,  together  with  a  condemnation  of  the  rich, 
that  are  everywhere  evident  in  Luke's  gospel.    In  com- 


l8  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

parison  with  the  other  evangelists,  he  appears  preemi- 
nently a  social  reformer  and  agitator. 

These  scientific  and  philanthropic  characteristics  in 
Luke  would  seem  largely  to  have  determined  his  choice  of 
material  and  his  method  of  presentation.  While  he  has 
borrowed  three-fourths  of  Mark's  material,  and  has 
adopted  his  order  of  events,  he  does  not  hesitate  to  omit 
some  thirteen  passages,  and  even  to  make  changes  in  the 
modify  ^MaA  seuse.  His  greatest  change  is  the  omission  of  all  the  in- 
silaiTe^o?!?'  cidents  narrated  from  Mark  VI,  45  to  VIII,  26.  He 
makes  similar  free  use  of  the  Sayings  of  Jesus.  Although 
Luke  less  often  introduces  changes  in  the  actual  words  of 
Jesus  than  in  the  narrative  material,  he  emphasizes  the 
most  radical  teachings  of  the  Master  in  all  their  sternness 
of  tone,  where  Matthew  seems  often  to  have  softened 
them.  For  example,  the  beatitude  that  Matthew  (V,  3) 
renders:  "Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit"  appears  in 
Luke  as:  "Blessed  are  you  who  are  poor  .  .  .  Blessed 
are  you  who  hunger  now  .  .  .  But  alas  for  you  who  are 
rich  .  .  .  Alas  for  you  who  are  sated  now"  (VI,  20-25). 
Thus  the  passage  that  Luke  makes  an  excoriation  of 
greed,  Matthew  reports  as  a  commendation  of  humility. 

About  one-third  of  Luke's  total  text  must  have  been 
taken  from  sources  other  than  Mark  and  the  Sayings  of 
Jesus.  In  gathering  this  material  peculiar  to  his  gospel, 
Luke  tested  it  as  carefully  and  adapted  it  as  freely  to  his 
purpose  as  he  did  the  more  common  sources.  His  most 
radical  change  here  appears  in  the  insertion  of  material 
from  IX,  51,  to  XVIII,  14.  These  added  incidents  in- 
clude much  that  is  calculated  to  reveal  the  broad  and 
tender  sympathies  of  Jesus,  and  to  stress  his  noble  human- 


HISTORICAL  SOURCES  FOR  THE  TEACHINGS  OF  JESUS      1 9 

ity  in  the  treatment  of  the  neglected  and  persecuted,  — 
the  poor,  publicans,  sinners,  women,  and  lepers.  Here 
alone  appear  the  parables  of  the  Good  Samaritan  (X,  30- 
35),  the  Friend  asking  for  Bread  (XI,  5-13),  the  Rich 
Fool  (XII,  16-21),  the  Lost  Sheep  (XV,  3-7),  the  Lost 
Coin  (XV,  8-1 1),  the  Prodigal  Son  (XV,  11-32),  the  Rich 
Man  and  Lazarus  (XVI,  19-31),  the  Unjust  Judge  (XVII, 
1-8),  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican  (XVIII,  9-14),  and 
many  others.  In  this  addition  we  find  also  the  sending 
forth  of  the  Seventy  without  material  provision  (X,  i- 
16),  the  instructive  visit  of  Jesus  to  the  home  of  Mary  and 
Martha  (X,  38-42),  and  the  blessing  pronounced  by  a 
certain  woman  upon  the  Mother  of  Jesus  (XI,  27  f .). 

The  peculiar  sympathy  of  Luke  for  the  poor  and  op- 
pressed appears  throughout  his  version  of  the  gospel.  He 
takes  little  interest  in  the  miraculous  aspect  of  Jesus' 
work,  but  he  is  greatly  moved  by  the  depth  and  breadth 
of  his  message  for  humanity.  He  constantly  adds 
touches  to  bring  this  out.  Where  Matthew  traces  the 
genealogy  of  Jesus  to  Abraham  to  demonstrate  his  Mes- 
siahship,  Luke  (III,  38)  connects  him  with  Adam  as  a 
S3nnbol  of  his  humanity,  and  stresses  the  universality  of 
the  opportunities  he  offers.  He  is  the  only  evangelist  to 
tell  us  that  during  his  ministry  Jesus  and  his  disciples 
were  somewhat  dependent  upon  charity  for  support/] 
{Lk.  VIII,  2  f.).  Throughout,  Luke  seldom  fails  to  de-  ' 
pict  Jesus'  encouragement  of  the  poor  and  his  denuncia- 
tion of  the  unsympathetic  rich.  The  point  of  view  in  his^ 
gospel  is  distinctively  social. 

The  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  —  This  account 
of  the  sources  and  point  of  view  of  the  Synoptists  that 


20 


WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 


has  now  been  given  may  have  proved  somewhat  difficult 
and  confusing,  especially  to  those  who  have  not  made 
any  historical  study  of  the  New  Testament.  It  may, 
therefore,  be  well,  before  undertaking  a  description  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel,  to  attempt  to  clarify  the  matter  by 
diagrammatic  means.  The  charts  printed  below  show 
in  outline  two  theories  of  the  sources  of  the  synoptic  writ- 
ings that  have  the  widest  currency.  Due  allowance  for 
each  solution  has  been  made  in  the  preceding  description. 


TWO  SOLUTIONS  OF  THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 


I.    The  Older  Solution 


,Matthe 


I^uke, 


Infancy  and 
Resurrection 
Narratives,  A 


Infancy  and 
Resurrection 
Narratives,  B 
Matthevf^s  tfigia 
(A  collection  of  sayings 
only  in  Aramaic; 

II.    The  Newer  Solution 

(Weiss,  accepted  substantially  by  Harnack,  Sanday,  Streeter.and  others) 


Matthevy 

Slight  Addition 
from  Oral  Traditions" 


I,uke 


Mark 
Greek  Translation  of  Q' 

Q 

(A  collection  of  narratives, 
as  well  as  sayings,  in 
Aramaic,  by  Matthew) 


(A  collection  of  sayings, 
with  narratives,  written 
in  Judaea;  author  unknown, 
but  close  to  John  and  Mary) 


The  Gospel  according  to  John.  —  The  three  synoptic 
gospels,  then,  although  having  much  of  their  material 
in  common,  are  quite  distinctive  in  their  point  of  view. 
Nevertheless,  they  are  usually  grouped  together  because 


HISTORICAL  SOURCES  FOR  THE  TEACHINGS  OF  JESUS     21 

of  the  similarity  in  material  and  form  of  presentation, 
when  compared  with  the  Fourth  Gospel,  called  by  the 
name  of  the  "beloved  apostle,"  John.  Here  we  find  a 
radical  difference  from  the  synoptic  writings  in  content, 
emphasis,  and  method  of  approach.  In  fact,  from  inter- 
nal evidence  one  finds  it  difficult  to  understand  how  this 
book  could  possibly  have  been  written  during  the  life- 
time of  John  or  by  one  so  thoroughly  Hebraic  in  his  out- 
look and  expression  as  a  Galilean  fisherman,  son  of  Zebe-  john  shows  the 
dee  and  brother  of  James.  Yet  it  must  be  remembered  SeEtic  °phi. 
that  John  Hved  to  a  great  age,  and  that  Ephesus,  his 
traditional  place  of  residence,  was  a  center  of  Judaeo- 
Greek  culture.  Hence  the  Fourth  Gospel  may  have  been 
based  upon  the  Johannine  tradition,  and  may  even  have 
been  written  in  part  by  the  disciple.  Certainly  in  its 
present  form  it  must  have  been  produced  by  one  who  had 
been  largely  influenced  by  Hellenistic  philosophy  —  pos- 
sibly a  member  of  the  "school  of  John'^  at  Ephesus  — 
and  may  be  judged  to  have  been  composed  as  late  as  loo 
or  no  A.D. 

The  underlying  conception  of  John  is  the  old  logos 
("word"  or  "reason")  doctrine  of  the  Stoics,  which  had  ^'ogoff^tnae' 

I  •  *   *j^      1      *       'r.  T_  I-        T    •  of  Stoicism  and 

been  given  a  new  spiritual  significance  by  such  reugion-  phiio  judsus, 
ists  as  Philo  Judaeus.  The  explicit  terminology  of  this 
Logos  philosophy  appears  in  the  introductory  fourteen 
verses  of  the  first  chapter  of  John,  but  the  basal  idea  runs 
throughout  the  entire  gospel.  The  conception  constitutes 
its  foundation,  as  well  as  its  point  of  departure.  While 
the  idea  of  the  Logos  differs  somewhat  in  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel from  that  of  Philo,  it  has  evidently  been  influenced  by 
it,  as  well  as  by  the  original  Stoic  conception.   With  both 


32  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TKACH? 

John  and  Philo,  the  Logos  is  treated  as  divine,  existing 
from  the  beginning  as  the  agent  of  the  Creator,  and  serv- 
ing as  the  archetype  for  man,  much  as  God  was  the  arche- 
type of  the  Logos  itself.  Thus  it  was  the  mediator  be- 
tween God  and  man.  New  features,  however,  appear 
in  the  conception  of  John,  as  a  result  of  the  identification 
in  this  gospel  of  the  Logos  with  an  historic  personage, 
Jesus. 

We  find,  then,  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  a  highly  developed 
Greek  modification  of  the  primitive  teachings  of  Jesus. 
Hence  John  the  Baptist  no  longer  appears  in  this  gospel 
as  a  forerunner,  since  Jesus  is  depicted  as  having  existed 
from  the  beginning.  He  has  always  been  the  Son  and 
eternal  companion  of  the  Father,  and  John  the  Baptist 
never  seems  to  have  been  in  doubt  concerning  the  Mes- 
siahship  of  Jesus.  Nor  does  either  the  growth  of  the  dis- 
ciples' faith  in  Jesus  or  the  hatred  and  opposition  of  the 
Jews  appear  to  have  been  gradually  developed,  as  with 
the  Synoptists,  but  both  attitudes  are  described  as  exist- 
ing from  the  very  first.  From  the  beginning,  too,  the 
mission  of  Jesus  is  represented  as  universal,  and  he  comes 
to  give  life  to  all  humanity,  without  regard  to  national 
lines.  Moreover,  the  fatherhood  of  God  now  seems  to  be 
limited  to  Jesus,  and  the  Father  can  never  be  brought 
into  the  most  intimate  contact  with  men,  except  as  they 
first  secure  the  love  of  the  one  who  holds  this  imique 
place.  The  point  of  view  becomes  Christocentric,  instead 
fhe^  S'^of  ^^  theocentric.  John  naturally  tends  to  magnify  the 
^*^"^-  deeds  of  Jesus.    Many  wonderful  signs  of  his  power  are 

given  by  the  Master,  which  the  Synoptists  had  recorded 
him  as  being  unwilling  to  do.    His  works  are  no  longer 


HISTORICAL  SOXmCES  FOR  THE  TEACHINGS  OF  JESUS      23 

cited  as  evidence  of  his  compassion  and  of  the  actual 
presence  of  God's  kingdom,  so  much  as  a  manifestation 
of  his  power  and  a  proof  that  he  is  actually  the  son  of 
God. 

Evidently  this  Fourth  Gospel  is  not  to  be  considered 
primarily  biographical  or  historical.  It  furnishes  us  with 
an  interpretation,  rather  than  a  chronicle  of  events.  It 
is  clearly  a  philosophical  treatise  upon  the  meaning  of  the 
life  of  Jesus.  It  is  concerned  less  with  the  life  itself  than 
with  its  spiritual  nature  and  uniqueness.  While  some  of 
John's  material  is  in  keeping  Vvith  that  given  by  the  Syn-  not"55ayf4?« 
optists,  he  treats  the  facts  of  Jesus'  life  with  considerable  sjS)ptSte°^  ^* 
freedom,  and  the  geography  of  the  Master's  labors 
varies  strikingly  from  that  in  the  other  gospels.  Of  the 
narrative  in  the  synoptic  writers  less  than  eight  per  cent 
of  the  events  prior  to  the  triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem 
appear  also  in  John,  and,  while  the  purport  of  Jesus'  say- 
ings as  given  by  John  harmonizes  quite  fully  with  that  in 
the  other  gospels,  they  agree  but  little  in  their  form. 
After  returning  from  his  interview  with  John  the  Baptist, 
the  Synoptists  depict  Jesus  as  devoting  himself  to  Gali- 
lee, with  Capemaimi  as  his  center,  until  toward  the  end 
of  his  ministry,  but  in  John  the  chief  scene  of  his  activi- 
ties from  the  beginning  is  Jerusalem.  Instead  of  the  terse 
illustrations  and  crisp  epigrammatic  expressions  that 
appear  in  the  synoptic  gospels,  John  depicts  Jesus  as 
employing  a  style  very  like  his  own.  There  are  a  few 
allegories,  but  no  parables  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and 
long  and  repetitious  disquisitions  upon  philosophy  take 
the  place  of  the  epigrams.  Among  these  elaborate  ad- 
dresses are  those  upon  the  "  bread  of  life  "  (VI),  and  i^xmi 


24  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

the  departure  of  Jesus  and  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
(XIV-XVII). 

Hence  the  version  of  the  gospel  given  by  John  is  not  to 
be  regarded  quite  as  a  primary  source.  Any  factual  or 
historical  statement  made  by  him  must  be  scanned  with 
some  care,  and,  before  acceptance,  it  should  be  verified 
through  other  sources.  All  reliable  material  should,  of 
course,  be  selected  and  utilized,  especially  if  it  is  in  har- 
mony with  that  of  the  other  gospels,  but  in  the  main  the 
Synoptists  must  be  our  chief  historical  authorities  for 
eliciting  the  facts  in  the  Hfe  of  Jesus.  John's  gospel  is, 
however,  of  great  value  in  throwing  light  upon  the  be- 
lief and  experiences  of  the  Christians  of  the  early  second 
century.  This  treatise  undoubtedly  reflects  much  of  the 
views,  traditions,  and  utterances  of  the  Christians  after 
they  had  begun  to  express  their  religion  in  terms  of  Hel- 
lenistic philosophy. 

Other  Gospels  and  Non-Christian  Writers.  —  We  have 
already  noted  (pp.  7  ff.)  that,  besides  the  four  so  well 
known  through  the  Canon,  there  were  other  gospels. 
These,  for  some  reason,  did  not  prove  as  popular  with  the 
churches  and  eventually  dropped  out  of  use.  However, 
we  still  possess  records  of  some  of  these  works.  Such  is 
The  Gospel  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  preserved  mostly  in 
Hebrews^  °  *  the  WHtlngs  of  Origcn  and  Jerome.  The  date  of  this 
production  must  have  been  somewhere  between  65  and 
100  A.D.  While  of  approximately  the  same  period  as  the 
synoptic  gospels,  it  is  not  nearly  as  valuable  for  source 
material.  It  is  occasionally  ancillary  in  throwing  light 
upon  the  history  of  Jesus,  but  it  is  of  little  importance  in 
itself.    A  manuscript  containing  the  Gospel  of  Peter, 


HISTORICAL  SOURCES  FOR  THE  TEACHINGS  OF  JESUS      25 

which  seems  to  have  been  in  use  toward  the  end  of  the  a?d  the  cospei 

of  Peter  contain 

second  century,  was  discovered  about  1890,  and  has  been  Ji"[|riai^^^^°°*' 
widely  translated.  This  gospel  makes  many  additions 
to  the  ordinary  accounts,  but  was  evidently  written  by  an 
author  who  was  quite  ignorant  of  the  political  conditions 
of  Jesus'  day.  It  is  crude  and  contains  much  legendary 
material,  and  seems  to  have  belonged  to  the  group  of 
Christians  known  as  Docetists  ("appearers").  This  he- 
retical sect  held  that  the  body  of  Jesus  was  a  mere 
phantom  or  appearance,  or,  if  it  was  real,  it  was  celestial 
rather  than  terrestrial.  According  to  them  Christ  de- 
parted from  Jesus  before  his  death,  and  this  gospel  ren- 
dered the  cry  from  the  cross:  "My  Power,  my  Power, 
thou  hast  forsaken  me ! "  Obviously  these  versions  of  the 
gospel,  possessing  neither  the  antiquity  nor  the  verisimili- 
tude of  the  synoptics,  cannot  be  classed  with  them. 

Other  references  to  Jesus  and  the  early  Christians  ap- 
pear in  such  authorities  as  Josephus  (37-  c.ioo  a.d.),  JJ^J;2^^^^'^°{ 
Pliny  the  Younger  (62-113  a.d.),  Suetonius  (fl.  100  a.d.),  ^^^tie  value, 
and  Tacitus  (c.  51-113  a.d.),  but  these  allusions  are  very 
casual  and  meager,  and  are  of  little  worth  as  primary 
sources.  Philo  Judaeus  (c.  20  B.C.-54  a.d.),  Seneca 
(4  B.C.-65  A.D.),  and  Plutarch  (c.  46-120  a.d.),  who 
lived  in  the  apostolic  period,  do  not  even  mention  Jesus. 
Naturally,  with  the  ideals  and  interests  prevailing  in 
those  days  of  Roman  imperialism,  the  meek  and  lowly 
Nazarene  and  the  peculiar  and  unpopular  people  that 
professed  his  teachings  excited  but  little  interest,  even 
from  high-minded  writers.  The  primary  sources  for  the 
life  and  works  of  Jesus  are  almost  entirely  Christian,  and 
may  be  limited  very  nearly  to  the  New  Testament.    Of 


26  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

these  the  synoptic  gospels  afford  by  far  the  most  reliable 
source  material. 

The  Manuscripts  and  Printed  Texts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. —  The  books  finally  included  in  the  Canon  of  the 
New  Testament  were  at  first  preserved  by  manuscript,  as 
the  art  of  printing  was  not  discovered  until  more  than 
twelve  hundred  years  after  their  composition.  But  we 
have  neither  record  nor  tradition  of  any  of  the  original 
manuscripts.  Copies  of  them,  however,  seem  to  have 
been  made  comparatively  early,  and  by  the  middle  of 
the  second  century  they  were  being  extensively  multiplied. 
The  earliest  manuscripts  now  in  existence  apparently  date 
from  about  the  fourth  century,  and  from  these  an  enor- 
mous niunber  of  copies  were  made  by  hand  before  print- 
ing was  introduced.  A  large  number  of  variants  in  the 
Manuscripts       tcxt  aud  cuHous  displacements  of  material  arose  through 

contain   many  ^  ° 

variant..  ^hc  peculiarity  of  different  copyists,  and  it  is  often  quite 

impossible  to  discover  the  form  in  which  the  original 
manuscripts  reported  the  message.  This  further  com- 
plicates the  difficulty  of  assuming  verbal  inspiration. 

The  first  printed  text  of  the  New  Testament  was  that 
known  as  the  "  Complutensian."   It  was  prepared  at  the 

Jbl  ^nd^^Sr'  request  of  Cardinal  Ximenes  at  Alcala,  Spain,  which 

Sonr*hrauen1:ed  P^^^^  ^^.d  bccu  kuowu  as  Complutum  in  ancient  days. 

au  other  texts,  r^^^  manuscript  or  manuscripts  from  which  this  book 
was  taken  are  unknown.  The  work  was  begun  in  15 14, 
but  it  was  not  issued  until  six  years  later.  Meanwhile 
Erasmus,  the  great  humanist  and  Bible  scholar,  antic- 
ipated its  completion  with  a  very  faulty  text,  made  at 
Basel  in  1 5 16  from  five  or  six  manuscripts.  Despite  the 
careless  production  of  this  book  by  Erasmus,  it  has  had 


HISTORICAL  SOURCES  FOR  THE  TEACHINGS  OF  JESUS      27 

more  to  do  with  fixing  the  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment than  any  other  work,  as  the  edition  contained  some 
thirty-three  hundred  copies  and  only  six  hundred  copies 
of  the  Complutensian  were  made.  And  these  two  printed 
texts,  derived  from  comparatively  late  manuscripts  taken 
at  random,  served  as  the  basis  for  a  number  of  succeed- 
ing editions.  In  1546  Stephanus  issued  his  text,  which 
was  the  resultant  of  the  two  earlier  productions  im- 
proved by  comparison  with  some  fifteen  additional  manu- 
scripts. The  next  important  edition  was  that  issued  by 
Beza  at  Geneva  in  1565,  after  consulting  a  few  more 
manuscripts.  The  famous  Elzevir  print  of  the  New 
Testament  passed  through  half  a  dozen  editions  during 
the  half  century  following  1624. 

All  of  these  texts  were  inaccurate  and  somewhat  the 
result  of  haphazard  collections.  But  from  about  the 
middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  until  the  present  there 
has  been  a  vigorous  effort  made  by  scholars  to  furnish 

more  accurate  versions.    They  have  everywhere  been  Modem  scholar- 

•'       ^  "^     ^  ship   has   pro- 

gathering  up  all  possible  manuscripts,  arranging  them  f"^"?^te™°J|i. 

in ''families,"  and  determining  the  oldest  texts.    Almost  *^°'^- 

four  thousand  Greek  manuscripts  have  been  found,  and 

among  them  are  nearly  all  those  of  most  importance. 

Some  eight  thousand  manuscripts  of  the  Latin  texts, 

including  the  Vulgate,  about  nine  thousand  of  the  Syriac, 

Aramaic,  Coptic,  Armenian,  Gothic,  and  other  ancient 

forms  have  likewise  been  collected,  which,  while  not 

comparing  with  the  Greek  in  value,  often  throw  light 

upon  doubtful  places.     Hence,  while  we  can  scarcely 

hope  ever  to  be  certain  in  all  cases  of  the  form  in  which 

New  Testament  writers  gave  their  message,  we  shall 


28 


WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 


constantly  approximate  more  and   more  their  actual 

words. 

In  view  of  this,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  anyone 

who  has  a  regard  for  truth  and  accuracy,  can  still  cling 

The  King  James  to  the  King  Tames  translation,  even  with  its  beautiful 

translation,  .  . 

diction,  and  act  as  if  this  brought  us  closest  to  infallible 
truth.  This  so-called  Authorized  Version,  published  in 
1611,  was  the  outcome  of  many  successive  revisions  of 
the  translation  completed  by  Tyndale  in  1534,  which 
was  to  a  certain  extent  dependent  upon  that  made  by 
Wyclif  about  1380,  and  the  Wyclif  translation  was  not 
from  the  original  Greek,  but  from  the  Vulgate  text. 
Moreover,  as  we  have  noted,  it  is  since  the  day  of  the 
King  James  Version  that  the  oldest  and  most  important 
of  the  manuscripts  have  been  found  or  become  accessible. 
Obviously  the  Revised  Version  of  188 1  must  be  closer 
to  the  original,  and  much  better  for  genuine  study. 

But  even  this  edition  did  not  have  the  benefit  of  the 
latest  discoveries,  and  its  English,  though  quaint  and 
charming,  is  in  many  passages  almost  imintelligible  to 
the  modern  reader.  Moreover,  the  retention  of  a  style 
and  phraseology  no  longer  commonly  used  too  often  gives 
one  the  impression  that  the  message  of  the  Bible  is  very 
remote  from  life  in  the  twentieth  century.  Clearly, 
for  the  best  results  with  most  people,  we  should 
be  able  to  study  the  Bible  through  its  most  accurate 
text  and  in  that  form  of  the  English  language  we  use  to- 
day. A  number  of  recent  translations  have  undertaken 
to  bring  this  to  pass.  Among  them  is  The  New  Testament 
in  Modern  Speech  (Pilgrim  Press,  1909),  translated  by 
Dr.  R.  F.  Weymouth,  which  is  peculiarly  vivid  and  virile 


the  Revised 
Version, 


and  more 
recent    transla- 
tions. 


HISTORICAL  SOURCES  FOR  THE  TEACHINGS  OF  JESUS      29 

for  public  reading.  The  Twentieth  Century  New  Testament 
(Revell,  191 1),  translated  from  the  original  Greek  as 
given  by  the  Resultant  Text,  which  is  used  in  practically 
all  citations  in  this  book,  has  striven  hard  to  gain  the 
exact  force  and  meaning  of  every  word  in  modem  Eng- 
lish. The  most  recent  work  of  this  sort  is  the  accurate, 
scholarly,  and  forceful  New  Translation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment (Doran,  Hodder,  and  Stoughton,  19 18)  by  Dr. 
James  Moffatt. 

Summary.  —  Since  Jesus  is  an  historical  character,  the 
documents  concerning  him,  together  with  the  peculiari- 
ties of  their  writers,  should  be  examined  and  compared 
without  prejudice.  The  positions  of  both  the  verbal 
inspirationists  and  of  the  man  who  rejects  the  his- 
toricity of  Jesus  will,  from  this  poiat  of  view,  appear  to 
be  alike  untenable.  Jesus  himself  wrote  nothing,  but  the 
Sayings  of  Jesus  seem  to  have  been  collected  by  the  apos- 
tolic band  about  35  a.d.  The  material  of  this  work  has 
been  preserved  in  Matthew  and  Luke.  Six  Epistles  of 
Paul  were  also  produced  (c.  50  a.d.)  before  the  gospels. 
The  earliest  gospel  was  that  of  Mark  (60-70  a.d.), 
which  largely  presents  the  unadorned  recollections  of 
Peter.  The  other  two  "synoptic  "  gospels,  Matthew  and 
Luke,  written  about  75-85  a.d.,  took  their  material 
mostly  from  Mark  and  the  Sayings  of  Jesus,  but  suited 
it  to  their  needs  and  put  it  in  better  literary  form.  Mat- 
thew stresses  the  divinity  and  Messiahship  of  Jesus; 
Luke,  his  humanity  and  social  message.  John,  written 
much  later  (loo-iio  a.d.),  interprets  Christianity  in 
the  terms  of  the  Logos  doctrine  of  Stoicism  and  Philo 
Judaeus,  and  magnifies  the  supernatural  even  more  than 


30  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH  I* 

Matthew.  There  were  other  gospels,  but  they  soon 
dropped  out  of  use,  and  references  to  Jesus  also  appear 
in  some  non-Christian  authors  of  the  day.  The  earliest 
manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  date  from  about  the 
fourth  century.  The  first  printed  text,  the  Compluten- 
sian,  was  begun  in  15 14,  but  its  appearance  was  antic- 
ipated by  the  edition  of  Erasmus  (15 16).  These  two 
editions,  made  from  comparatively  late  manuscripts, 
largely  influenced  all  texts  until  the  middle  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  but  since  then  the  discovery  of  many 
thousand  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  has  produced  more 
accurate  versions. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  READING » 

BuRKiTT,  F.  C.     The  Earliest  Sources  for  the  Life  of  Jesus* 
Gilbert,  G.  H.    Jesus.    Part  I  and  Indexes. 
Glover,  T.  R.     The  Jesus  of  History,    Chapter  I. 
GooDSPEED,  E.  J.     The  Story  of  the  New  Testament.    Chapters 

I-X,  XVII,  and  XX. 
Hunting,  H.  B.     The  Story  of  Our  Bible.    Chapters  V-VII, 

X,  and  XI. 
Jones,  M.     The  New  Testament  in  the  Twentieth  Century. 
King,  H.  C.    The  Ethics  of  Jesus.    Chapters  III  and  IV. 
Lake,  K.     The  Text  of  the  New  Testament. 
Mathews,    Shailer.    Social   and   Ethical    Teaching   of  Jesus, 

Study  I. 
Milligan,  G.    New  Testament  Documents. 
Moffatt,  James.    The  Theology  of  the  Gospels.    Chapter  I. 
Patton,    C.    S.    Sources   of  the   Synoptic   Gospels.    Especially 

Part  I. 

lA  more  extensive  bibliography,  grouped  by  topics,  will  be 
found  in  the  back  of  this  book.  The  publishers  and  the  date  of 
publication  of  each  book  are  given  there. 


HISTORICAL  SOURCES  FOR  THE  TEACHINGS  OF  JESUS     31 

Penniman,  Josiah  H.  A  Book  about  the  English  Bible.  Chap- 
ters I,  III,  VI,  and  XVI-XXI. 

Rall,  H.  F.    New  Testament  History.    Chapter  XLII. 

Rhees,  Rush.  The  Life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Part  I,  Chap- 
ters II  and  III. 

Smyth,  J.  Paterson.    How  We  Got  Our  Bible. 

Smyth,  J.  Paterson.    The  Bible  in  the  Making,    Part  IV. 


CHAPTER  n 

JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER 

Emphasis  in  Mark  upon  Jesus  as  the  Messiah. — 

From  the  discussion  in  the  foregoing  chapter  it  is  evi- 
dent that  two  of  the  sources  for  the  historic  teachings 
of  Jesus  are  somewhat  older  and  more  trustworthy  than 
the  others.  These  are  The  Sayings  of  Jesus,  collected 
for  the  disciples  when  first  going  out  to  preach,  and  the 
primitive  narrative  of  Mark,  which  was  probably  based 
upon  the  recollections  of  the  apostle,  Peter.  All  other 
sources  are  largely  indebted  to  these  earlier  documents, 
and,  in  comparison  with  them,  sink  into  relative  insignifi- 
cance. Except  as  it  appears  in  Matthew,  Luke,  and 
possibly  Mark,  the  "Sayings''  has  been  lost,  and  while 
it  must  have  afforded  vivid  glimpses  of  the  life  and 
ministry  of  Jesus,  it  does  not  furnish  us  with  the  same 
opportimities  for  study  as  does  Mark.  If  one  will  read 
this  oldest  of  the  gospels,  after  emptying  his  mind  of  all 
preconceptions,  he  is  enabled  to  get  a  graphic  unitary 
picture  of  Jesus  as  he  appeared  in  the  earhest  Christian 
Mark's  gospel  commuulty.  Thcrc  is  throughout  the  description  a  back- 
background,  ground  of  the  Jewish  expectations  of  the  Messiah's  com- 
ing and  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  narrative  revels 
in  the  miraculous,  with  no  apologetic  attitude  toward 
the  supernatural,  and  the  central  figure  is  supernatural 
in  character  and  function.  In  contrast  to  the  attitude 
of  this  simple  and  primitive  gospel,  Jesus  further  appears 

33 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER  33 

in  ecclesiastical  Matthew  as  the  new  teacher  and  law- 
giver, in  sociological  Luke  as  the  humanitarian,  and  in 
Hellenistic  John  as  the  eternal  "word/'  Mark  presents 
him  as  a  Messianic  enthusiast.^ 

In  Mark,  Jesus  is  depicted  first  as  proclaiming  his 
message:  "The  time  has  come  and  the  KiQgdom  of 
God  is  at  hand;  repent,  and  believe  the  Good  News" 
{Mk.  I,  15).  This  was  a  proclamation  of  the  im- 
minence of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  and  for  the  Jews 
of  that  day  must  have  suggested  the  apocalyptic  ideas  Mark  depicts 

•^  *^°  ^  "^  ^  Jesus    proclaim- 

that  had  appeared  m  Darnel,  Enoch,  and  a  number  ing  the  Kingdom 

*  ■'^  '  '  as  imminent, 

of  similar  works.  Amid  the  religious  crises  and  politi- 
cal oppressions  through  which  the  Jewish  people  had 
been  passing,  they  were  looking  forward  with  con- 
fidence to  a  day  when  God  should  himself  take  over 
the  dominion  of  the  world,  and  they  should,  under  the 
leadership  of  a  Messiah,  return  to  their  pristine  power 
and  glory.  This  message  of  Jesus  appears  to  have  been 
very  indifferently  received  in  Galilee,  and,  while  he  felt 
that  he  was  the  Messiah-to-be,  he  realized  that  the  time 
was  not  ripe,  because  the  people  were  not  ready.  Hence 
he  kept  the  secret  of  his  Messiahship  to  himself,  and  is  but  keeping  his 
even  represented  as  forbidding  the  demons,  who  through  secret, 
supernatural  instinct  realized  the  fact,  to  reveal  it  {Mk. 
I,  24, 34, 43  f.;  ni,  II  f.,  etc.).  Then,  being  further  con- 
vinced that  the  suffering  of  the  servant  of  the  Lord 
(see  Is.  LIII)  was  an  essential  preliminary  to  the  com-  and  going  to 

J.-,,.,  ,  i«r  IT  Jerusalem  to 

mg  of  the  kingdom,  he  set  his  face  toward  Jerusalem,  fuiaii  the  proph. 
where  he  was  to  suffer,  die,  and  rise  again. 

*For  a  further  discussion  of  this  eschatological  background, 
see  pp.  134  ff. 


ecies. 


34  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

Modem  Emphasis  upon  Jesus  as  a  Teacher.  —  Such 
in  outline  is  the  simple  Messianic  message  of  the  earliest 
gospel.  In  the  eyes  of  these  early  disciples,  through  the 
crucifixion  and  resurrection  of  the  Master,  the  Kingdom 
was  to  be  inaugurated,  and  it  was  to  be  fully  consum- 
mated later  when  he  should  come  in  power  and  glory. 
But  more  help  But  to-day  thc  world  finds  more  consolation  and  help 

is  now  found  in^  "^  -,.    .  'ii  i»i  r 

Jesus  as  teacher  m  his  moral  aud  reugious  ideals  and  m  the  aspect  of 

than  as  Messiah.  *-*  ■^       ^ 

Jesus  as  a  teacher.  The  parables  of  the  Good  Samaritan 
and  the  Prodigal  Son,  the  summary  of  the  Law  as  the 
love  of  God  and  one's  neighbor,  and  the  inward  meaning 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  prove  of  the  greatest  in- 
spiration and  most  efficient  guidance  to  us  now,  though 
they  do  not  bulk  large  in  the  Messianic  career  portrayed 
in  the  earliest  gospel.  Undoubtedly  Jesus  was  a  child 
of  his  times,  but  in  the  form  of  Jewish  Messianism  we 
have  the  world's  greatest  religious  genius  and  most  in- 
fluential moral  teacher.  With  this  apocalyptic  back- 
ground and  framework  in  mind,  we  may,  then,  turn  to 
a  serious  consideration  of  Jesus  the  teacher. 
Many  allusions       Jesus  is  oftcu  loiowu  in  the  gospels  by  the  name 

to  Jesus  as  a  •'  . 

teacher.  ^f  "teachcr."    The  Greek  word,  didaskalos,  which  may 

properly  be  so  rendered,  although  it  has  been  more 
frequently  translated  "master,"  is  used  in  the  gospels 
nearly  fifty  times  to  indicate  the  character  of  his  work. 
This  usage  is  also  supplemented  in  some  eight  or  ten 
passages  by  such  synonyms  as  the  Aramaic  rdbhi  or 
rabboni.  The  word  for  "teaching"  or  "doctrine"  like- 
wise occurs  occasionally,  while  the  verb,  "teach,"  is 
employed  as  frequently  as  all  the  other  words  together. 
And  if  we  count  such  expressions  as  "said,"  "spoke,"  or 


JEStrS  AS  A  TEACHER  35 

"answered,"  which  are  not  uncommonly  used  to  iQdicate 
the  informal  teaching  of  Jesus,  we  find  that  the  allusions 
of  the  sources  to  this  function  of  the  Master  number 
scarcely  less  than  two  hundred. 

Even  a  cursory  view  of  the  gospels  shows  that  much  of  Jieawe  mea^ 
Jesus'  time  was  consumed  with  teaching.  He  taught  ^o^^'^^o^^'- 
publicly  in  the  synagogues  and  the  Temple,  on  the  top  of 
a  hill  and  in  a  boat  on  a  lake,  and  throughout  the  villages 
from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem,  while  he  constantly  instructed 
his  "disciples"  (or  pupils)  privately.  He  realized  that 
the  only  means  of  fully  incorporating  a  new  ideal  into  the 
life  of  the  world  and  of  efifecting  permanent  reforms  is  to 
be  found  in  teaching,  and  that  specially  trained  men, 
such  as  he  would  require  as  supporters  and  followers  in 
this  work,  could  be  produced  only  by  a  course  of  personal 
instruction.  Emotions  may  be  aroused  and  activities 
temporarily  sustained  and  directed  by  occasional,  brief 
appeals  from  the  orator  or  preacher,  but  habits  can  be 
formed  and  a  lasting  impression  produced  only  through 
the  insistent  stimuli  furnished  to  plastic  minds  by  a  well- 
prepared  and  skillful  teacher. 

His  Fitness  for  Teaching.  —  Jesus  has  for  centuries 
been  known  as  The  Great  Teacher.  This  recognition 
of  his  superiority  has  been  based  upon  the  lofty  and  rnii- 
versal  nature  of  his  lessons,  the  variety  and  skill  of  his 
methods  of  teaching,  the  myriads  of  people  his  message 
has  reached,  and  the  marvelous  changes  it  has  accom- 
plished. For  these  labors  and  results  Jesus  was  well  fitted 
and  prepared  both  by  nature  and  training.  If  we  may 
judge  from  his  manner  of  life  and  his  achievements,  he  ^  ^.,  . 
must  have  been,  well  developed  physically.    While  all  Jesus. 


36 


WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 


His     natural 
sagacity   was 
developed    by 
training, 


and  he  obtained 
a  mastery  of 
Jewish  life, 


that  the  gospels  report  of  his  bodily  vigor  is  contained  in 
such  brief  statements  as:  "The  child  grew  strong  and 
wise,  and  the  blessing  of  God  was  upon  him''  {Lk.  II,  40), 
his  ancestral  occupation  as  a  carpenter  must  have  been 
salutary  and  sinew-building,  and,  without  considerable 
vitality  and  strength  in  manhood,  he  could  scarcely  have 
endured  the  great  physical  and  mental  strain  required 
in  his  ministry. 

On  the  intellectual  side,  Jesus  seems  also  to  have 
been  well  prepared.  Besides  the  testimony  as  to  his 
wisdom  in  the  quotation  above,  Luke  (II,  52)  repeats: 
"Jesus  grew  in  wisdom  as  he  grew  in  years,  and 
gained  the  blessing  of  God  and  man.''  Jesus  would 
seem  to  have  had  a  fine  mind  and  great  sagacity 
by  nature,  and,  although  the  evangelists  are  silent 
about  the  matter,  these  personal  qualities  must  have 
been  largely  cultivated  by  communion  with  the  natural 
scenery  of  the  region  in  which  he  was  reared  and  by 
the  informal  mtellectual  and  religious  training  of  the 
Jewish  family.  He  seems  to  have  possessed  the  reflective 
and  poetic  temperament  that  is  so  characteristic  of 
Oriental  life  and  so  favorable  to  the  development  of  an 
ethical  and  religious  teacher.  Like  Jewish  boys  generally, 
during  his  early  years  he  must  have  been  trained  at  home 
by  his  mother  in  the  traditional  religious  observances,  the 
stories  of  patriarchs,  statesmen,  warriors,  poets,  and 
prophets,  and  selections  from  the  Scriptures.  Later  he 
came  more  under  the  influence  of  his  father  in  the  shop, 
and  was  probably  further  educated  in  the  synagogue 
school  of  the  vicinity. 

Thus  he  obtained  a  complete  mastery  of  Jewish  life, 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER  37 

literature,  and  traditions,  and  was  able  to  express  him- 
self to  his  hearers  with  appropriateness  and  force.  At 
the  tip  of  his  tongue  he  held  historical  allusions  to  illus- 
trate each  point,  and  his  knowledge  was  evidently  deeper 
and  broader,  and  his  insight  far  keener,  than  that  of  the 
Jewish  teachers  of  the  day,  who  were  supposed  to  be 
especially  skilled  in  rabbinical  methods  and  interpreta- 
tion. He  saw  so  incisively  into  the  questions  at  issue, 
and  appreciated  so  clearly  the  real  significance  of  words 
and  ideas,  that  he  seems  to  have  completely  overthrown 
his  ecclesiastical  opponents,  whenever  they  resorted  to 
their  superficial  applications  and  quibbling.  We  find 
him  repeatedly  revealing  the  spirit  underlying  the  letter, 
and  causing  the  narrow  phase  of  an  established  custom 
to  melt  into  a  broader,  by  appealing  to  some  traditional 
incident  or  an  earlier  law.  In  this  way,  for  example,  he 
distinguished  the  deeper  motives  out  of  which  the  pro- 
hibition of  murder  and  adultery  have  grown  {ML  V, 
21  ff.),  defended  the  use  of  the  Sabbath  for  man  by  re- 
ferring to  historical  precedents  {Mt.  XII,  1-8),  and 
showed  that  any  instability  of  the  family  was  contrary  to 
an  older  dispensation  than  that  of  Moses  {Mk.  X,  2-12). 

As  the  result  of  his  early  life,  too,  Jesus  displayed  a  ^f^nfenTd^*^^^ 
marvelous  knowledge  of  men  and  things,  as  well  as  of  ^^'°^^- 
Jewish  culture.  As  we  shall  see  later,  he  adapted  his 
teaching  to  the  individuals  concerned  with  the  utmost 
skill,  and  he  used  illustrations  from  the  life  about  him 
that  were  both  intelligible  and  striking.  His  clear  in- 
sight into  the  superficiality  and  failings  of  the  Pharisees 
is  evident  in  his  teaching  on  the  Mount  {Mt.  V  and 
VI),  while  the  revelation  of  himself  to  John  the  Bap- 


38  -WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

tist  {Mt.  XI,  4  Q.)y  his  rebuke  of  Simon  the  Pharisee 
{Lk.  VII,  40  ff.)j  his  reply  to  Nicodemus  {Jn.  Ill, 
2  ff.),  and  his  message  to  Herod  Antipas  {Lk.  XIII, 
31  E.)j  were  in  each  case  exactly  adapted  to  the  person, 
and  most  clear  and  convincing.  All  his  parables  likewise 
showed  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  human  nature  and 
a  knowledge  of  common  afifairs. 
Again,  his  moral  fitness  for  leadership  through  teaching 

His  self-control  IS  most  obvious.  His  sclf-control  and  uaturalncss  in  cvery 
incident  are  the  best  evidence  of  his  soimd  character  and 
fixity  of  purpose.  The  strength  of  his  personality,  with 
its  calmness  and  poise,  is  in  striking  contrast  to  the  per- 
turbed and  flurried  attitude  of  the  disciples  in  times  of 
stress.  Their  alarm  during  the  tempest  serves  as  but  a 
foil  to  his  complete  command  of  the  situation,  and  brings 
out  clearly  the  lesson  of  faith  he  taught  {Mk.  IV,  35  ff.)* 
His  self-possession  is  likewise  shown  in  his  quiet  rebuke  of 
James  and  John  when  they  clamored  for  vengeance  on  the 
Samaritan  village  that  did  not  welcome  him  (Lk.  IX, 
52  ff.).  And  in  similar  fashion,  at  the  time  of  his  arrest, 
the  agitation  and  abortive  attempts  at  defense  made  by 
the  disciples  greatly  heighten  the  dignity  and  control  of 
the  Master  (Mk.  XIV,  46  ff.;  Lk.  XXII,  47  ff.). 

The  character  of  Jesus  —  fearless,  devoted,  sympa- 
thetic, tactful,  and  religious  —  is  well  expressed  in  his 
life,  which  he  gave  to  service  and  sacrifice.  He  embodied 
the  ideals  and  attainments  he  wished  to  produce  in  others. 

and  the  em-     Hc  illustratcd  Hs  relidous  teaching  by  the  constant 

bodiment  of  his  ^  ^  °  o        ./ 

teachings  in  his  rccognition  of  his  own  need  of  the  Father's  presence.  To 
God  he  appealed  for  help  and  to  Him  he  made  thanksgiv- 
ing.  The  requirement  of  love  he  also  revealed  in  his  own 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER  39 

life.  He  continually  sympathized  with  and  met  the  needs 
of  others.  He  fed  the  multitude,  healed  the  sick  and  the 
mentally  distracted,  and  hushed  the  moans  of  the  an- 
guished. He  treated  despised  people  like  the  Samaritans 
with  respect  and  imderstanding,  and  the  woman  of  the 
street  with  kindness  and  consideration.  Finally,  he  went 
to  a  hideous  death  rather  than  abate  one  jot  or  tittle 
from  his  high  ideals.  And  even  as  he  was  dying,  he 
uttered  a  prayer  for  his  murderers. 

The  Approach  to  the  Study  of  His  Teachings. — 
Surely  no  person  in  history  was  ever  better  fitted  than 
Jesus  to  perform  a  great  educational  service.  His  mes- 
sage and  procedure  as  a  teacher  will  well  repay  anyone 
who  undertakes  a  careful  study  of  them.  But,  before 
beginning  the  examination  of  his  teachings,  it  may  be 
worth  while,  as  in  the  case  of  any  great  educator  or 
educational  period,  to  seek  the  best  avenue  of  approach. 
The  facts  connected  with  such  an  investigation  are  so 
numerous  and  diverse  that  one  is  liable  to  be  lost  in 
the  maze  unless  he  holds  some  clew  to  guide  him.  The 
thread  that  may  best  lead  one  through  the  labyrinth  of 
facts  seems  to  lie  along  the  way  of  inquiring  first  the 
purpose  of  the  training  he  offered,  for  purpose  always 
unifies  the  manifold  acts  and  sayings  of  a  person  by 
giving  them  meaning. 

A  most  important  step,  then,  in  studying  the  teach- 
ings of  such  an  influential  personage  as  Jesus,  is  to 
trace  his  educational  aims,  and  in  this  connection  en-  jesus'  educa- 
deavor  to  find  out  what  attempt  was  made  to  realize    '°°*  **"' 
them.    This  study  of  the  means  that  the  Great  Teacher 
used  to  accomplish  his  educational  purpose  will  include 


40 


WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 


an  investigation  of  at  least  three  main  topics,  which 
are  closely  connected.     In  the  first  place,  we  must 

content,  Undertake  to  discover  his  educational  content,  or  the 

doctrines  and  way  of  life  he  wished  to  teach.    Then, 

method,  somc  attention  should  be  given  to  the  method  by  which 

such  instruction  was  imparted,  although  this  may  at 
first  appear  so  informal  that  one  would  not  readily  per- 
ceive that  Jesus  used  any  definite  method.     Finally, 

organization,  it  may  be  of  valuc  to  investigate  the  organization  or 
material  means  by  which  he  expected  to  carry  out  his 
form  of  training. 

After  the  educational  plan  of  Jesus  is  fairly  under- 
stood in  both  its  purpose  and  procedure,  the  inquiry 

and  results.  should  naturally  be  as  to  its  results.  Only  as  its  effect 
upon  civilization  and  the  people  who  have  come  under 
its  influence  is  known,  can  its  importance  as  a  guide  in 
life  be  rightly  estimated.  But  all  historical  material, 
however  interesting  and  valuable  in  other  connections, 
which  does  not  contribute  to  these  ends  of  aim,  content, 
method,  organization,  and  results,  may  safely  be  neg- 
lected, since  it  can  throw  but  little  Hght  upon  the  work 
of  Jesus  as  a  teacher. 

The  Educational  Aim  of  Jesus.  —  First,  let  us  con- 
sider his  educational  aim.  This  has  both  social  and 
ethical  aspects.  The  ideal  society  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God  was  to  be  hastened  by  perfection  of  character. 
As  guiding  stars  to  his  goal,  he  uttered  the  dual  com- 
mand, to  love  God  and  one^s  neighbor,  and  he  declared 
that  the  supreme  evidence  of  this  love  is  foimd  in  serv- 

of^th^^KiSgdom  ^^^  ^^  ^"-^'^  fellows.    Loyal  service  in  the  interest  of 

and""^er^ic^"    oue's  home,  community,  and  country  harmonizes  with 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER  4I 

the  end  he  has  in  view,  and  at  the  same  time  this  con- 
stitutes the  means  to  attain  real  happiness.  The  enjoy- 
ment of  life  and  Hberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness 
both  on  the  part  of  the  individual  and  society,  with 
Jesus,  comes  through  social  service.  Hence  the  adop- 
tion and  embodiment  in  human  Hfe  of  the  Golden  Rule: — 
"Do  to  others  whatever  you  would  wish  them  to  do  to 
you''  (ML  VII,  12),  may  be  said  to  summarize  the  aim 
of  all  his  teaching. 

The  analysis  of  this  aim  will  be  further  treated  in 
another  chapter  (VI),  but  attention  may  here  be  called 
to  its  practicality  and  the  emphasis  upon  carrying  it 
into  efifect.  It  was  his  purpose  to  make  worthy  char-  f^araall^  rffi 
acters  and  noble  Hves  and  to  improve  society,  rather  than  ceremonies, 
than  to  carry  out  traditional  forms  and  ceremonies. 
'^  Unless  your  religion  is  above  that  of  the  Teachers  of 
the  Law  and  Pharisees,"  he  declared,  ''you  will  never 
enter  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven"  {Mt.  V,  20).  These 
ecclesiastical  groups  he  criticized  at  length  elsewhere 
(Mt.  XXIII)  because  ''they  preach,  but  do  not  prac- 
tice" .  .  .  "All  their  actions  are  done  to  attract  atten- 
tion. They  widen  their  phylacteries,  and  increase  the 
size  of  their  tassels,  and  like  to  have  the  place  of  honor 
at  dinner,  and  the  best  seats  in  the  synagogues,  and  to 
be  greeted  in  the  markets  with  respect,  and  to  be  called 
'Rabbi'  by  everybody."  He  continued  with  his  famous 
excoriation  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees:  "Hypocrites 
that  you  are,  you  clean  the  outside  of  the  cup  and  of 
the  dish,  but  inside  they  are  filled  with  the  results  of 
greed  and  self-indulgence." 

In  opposition  to  this  formalism  and  pretension,  Jesus 


42  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

insisted:  "By  the  fmit  of  their  lives  you  will  know 
them"  {ML  VII,  i6).  And  further  he  declared:  ''Not 
every  one  who  says  to  me,  'Master!  Master!'  will  enter 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  but  only  he  who  does  the  will 
of  my  Father  who  is  in  Heaven"  {Mt.  VII,  21).  Like- 
wise he  inquired:  "Why  do  you  call  me  'Master! 
Master!'  and  yet  fail  to  do  what  I  tell  you?"  {Lk.  VI, 
46).  So  it  will  be  that  "many  will  say  to  me  'Master, 
Master,  was  it  not  in  your  name  that  we  taught,  and 
in  your  name  that  we  drove  out  demons,  and  in  your 

S°on  practice!^  name  that  we  did  miracles? '  And  then  I  shall  say  to 
them  plainly  'I  never  knew  you.'  Go  from  my  presence, 
you  who  live  in  sin"  {Mt.  VII,  22).  And  it  was  his 
emphasis  upon  the  embodiment  of  ideals  in  practice 
that  caused  him  to  tell  the  young  man  of  formal  moral- 
ity: "If  you  wish  to  be  perfect,  go  and  sell  your  prop- 
erty and  give  to  the  poor"  {Mt.  XIX,  21),  and,  in  dis- 
criminating the  righteous  from  the  unrighteous,  to  de- 
clare whoever  fed,  clothed,  or  comforted  the  poor  did 
it  to  the  Master  himself  {Mt.  XXV,  34  ff.)-  Thus  the 
educational  aim  of  Jesus  was  preeminently  ethical  and 
practical,  and  contemplated  the  regeneration  of  the 
individual  and  society  through  service. 

The  Content  pf  His  Instruction.  —  The  content  of 
the  teachings  by  which  Jesus  hoped-  to  accomplish  this 
aim  is  more  fully  detailed  in  succeeding  chapters  (IV- 

Fatherhopd  of    VIII).     It  should,  howcvcr,  bc  stated  here  that  it  is 

God  and  brother-  ^  '      ^  ' 

hood  of  man,  largely  summed  up  in  the  fatherhood  of  God  and  the 
brotherhood  of  man,  and  in  his  conception  of  the  King- 
dom of  Heaven.  God,  he  taught,  is  to  be  viewed  as 
a  protecting,  pitying,  and  forgiving  father,  and  men 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER  43 

become  his  children  in  so  far  as  they  adopt  these  moral 
attributes.  They  can  acquire  such  qualities  through 
''love"  and  ''service"  to  their  fellow  men.  The  com- 
mon sonship  to  God,  which  may  be  secured  by  all  men, 
constitutes  them  brothers.  Jesus  thus  based  morals 
upon  religion,  rather  than  the  reverse.  With  him  the 
development  of  the  human  soul  into  God's  lilceness 
could  not  be  secondary  to  any  other  object,  and  he  ab- 
horred sin  as  a  rejection  of  a  man's  real  self.  Sin,  he 
felt,  was  based  upon  the  inner  life,  and  was  not  a  mere 
violation  of  ceremonial,  or  anything  purely  external 
and  technical.  Hence,  in  view  of  man's  divine  sonship, 
he  was  exceedingly  optimistic  about  the  possibility  of 
redirecting  the  lives  of  even  great  sinners.  and  membership 

,  ,         ,  ,         ,,  •  T       7        !•  »      fr  in  the  Kingdom 

Ims  conversion,  or  turning  back  of  ones  life  to  of  Heaven. 
God,  would  lead  to  membership  in  his  kingdom  of 
Heaven.  The  divine  Kingdom  is  necessarily  the  central 
theme  in  all  his  teaching,  and  he  constantly  sought  to 
clarify  its  meaning,  and  to  adapt  his  explanation  to 
the  mind  with  which  he  had  to  deal.  It  expanded  and 
supplemented  the  idea  of  a  divine  family  by  stressing 
its  social  side.  It  was  to  be  gradually  built  by  the  striv- 
ing of  individuals,  with  varying  degrees  of  spiritual  at- 
tainment, to  reach  it.  The  means  of  perfecting  the 
character  to  this  end  was  through  coming  in  touch  with 
Jesus  as  founder  of  the  Kingdom  and  catching  his  spirit 
of  love  to  God  and  service  to  man  as  far  as  one  can. 
The  Kingdom  of  God  was,  therefore,  a  present  reality, 
as  well  as  a  future  state,  and  at  times  he  hoped  for  an 
immediate  realization. 

His  Methods  of  Teaching.  —  The  methods  by  which 


44  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

Jesus  taught  these  great  truths  will  be  discussed  in  the 
next  chapter  (III),  but,  even  at  the  risk  of  some  repeti- 
tion, we  can  appropriately  examine  them  in  outline  now. 
The  underlying  principles  of  his  methods  are  skillfully 
concealed.  However,  it  is  clear  that  he  regularly  used 
a  "problem"  as  the  means  of  attracting  attention  and 

^^robiem"  Stimulating  thought.  His  profound  knowledge  of  hu- 
man nature  and  his  command  of  a  wide  range  of  topics 
enabled  him  to  adapt  his  message  to  each  individual. 

totheSwua?  Sometimcs,  however,  he  was  obliged  to  defer  his  teach- 
ing, because  of  the  mental  or  moral  limitations  of  his 
hearers.  Through  his  thorough  acquaintance  with  their 
traditions  he  was  especially  able  to  reach  the  Jews  by 
basing  his  teachings  upon  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  but 
he  always  emphasized  their  inner  meaning. 

As  regards  the  external  form  of  his  teaching,  Jesus  was 
at  all  times  graphic  and  vivid.  He  everywhere  employed 
proverbs  and  epigrams  and  figures  of  speech  that  would 
arouse  attention  and  burn  their  way  into  the  memory  of 

proverbs  and     his  hcarcrs.    Hc  developed  the  parable  as  the  chief  form 

epigrams,     and  ^  *^ 

aUegoiSs.  ^""^  ^^  ^^^  method,  and  this,  by  holding  up  one  central  idea 
in  various  lights,  proved  his  greatest  success.  To  judge 
from  John's  record,  Jesus  occasionally  used  allegories, 
as  well  as  parables.  He  obviously  accompanied  his 
teachings  by  external  acts  as  a  method  of  objective 
emphasis. 

His  Organization  for  the  Work.  —  Jesus  began  his 
mission  in  Galilee  upon  the  foundations  laid  by  John  the 
Baptist.  Here  he  found  an  opportunity  for  contact  with 
all  sorts  of  people,  and  the  work  began  to  spread  rapidly. 
Eventually  he  started  a  brotherhood  at  Capernaum  to 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER  45 

assist  him  in  his  work.  This  typical  community  or  con- 
gregation may  be  regarded  as  a  species  of  organization. 
It  was  composed  at  first  of  twelve  men  carefully  chosen 
for  their  ability  and  representative  of  various  groups.  JregaS"  ?nd 
Jesus  insisted  upon  loyalty  to  the  brotherhood  and  the  ''^  '°^*''^* 
work  in  most  hyperbolical  terms.  For  example,  he  de- 
clared: "If  any  man  comes  to  me  and  does  not  hate  his 
father  and  mother,  wife  and  children,  brothers  and  sisters, 
yes  and  his  very  life,  he  can  be  no  disciple  of  mine"  {Lk. 
XIV,  26).  And  again  he  commanded  a  man,  who  ex- 
cused himself  from  following  the  Master  on  the  score  of 
having  to  bury  his  father:  "Leave  the  dead  to  bury 
their  dead;  but  go  yourself  and  carry  far  and  wide  the 
news  of  the  Kingdom  of  God"  {Lk.  IX,  60).  In  con- 
sequence of  the  devotion  and  zeal  that  ensued  there  was 
a  speedy  increase  in  his  followers,  and,  according  to  Paul 
(I  Cor.  XV,  6),  the  earliest  Christian  witness,  some 
five  hundred  persons,  at  least,  at  the  close  of  the  brief 
ministry  of  Jesus,  were  to  be  enumerated  from  the  Ca- 
pernaum congregation  and  others  like  it. 

As,  however,  we  shall  see  later  (Chapter  VIII),  by- 
gathering  together  his  little  group  of  disciples,  Jesus  in-  J^'|ej''^h§°" ex- 
tended simply  to  foreshadow  the  Kingdom.  It  is  not  nee-  ge^^^church?''* 
essary  to  suppose  that  he  meant  to  organize  a  formal  insti- 
tution with  fixed  and  authoritative  ritual  and  creed,  such 
as  is  often  indicated  at  present  by  the  term  "Church." 
But,  whether  he  anticipated  all  the  officials  and  ceremo- 
nial or  not,  it  was  natural  that  some  organization  should 
be  created.  This  would  be  simply  building  upon  the 
social  instincts  of  humanity  and  would  afford  the  strength 
that  springs  from  union. 


46  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

The  Results  of  Jesus*  Teachings.  —  The  effect  of  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  upon  the  people  of  his  times  seems  to 
have  been  remarkable  from  the  very  first.  At  the  end  of 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  it  is  recorded  that  "the  crowd 
was  filled  with  amazement  at  his  teaching.  For  he  taught 
them  like  one  who  had  authority,  and  not  like  the  Teach- 
ers of  the  Law"  {ML  VII,  28  f.).  Elsewhere  it  is  stated 
that  "the  mass  of  the  people  listened  to  Jesus  with  de- 
SJon  jh? masses,  lig^^"  {ML  XII,  37).  Hcncc  "crowds  gathered  about 
him"  again  and  again  {Mk.  X,  I;  II,  13,  etc.).  It  was 
sometimes  necessary  for  him  to  "keep  a  small  boat  close 
by,  for  fear  the  crowd  should  crush  him"  {Lk.  Ill,  7), 
and  once  when  he  and  his  disciples  "went  into  a  house, 
the  crowd  again  collected,  so  that  they  were  not  able  even 
to  eat  their  food"  {Mk.  Ill,  20).  And  when  he  and  his 
disciples  withdrew  to  a  lonely  spot  to  rest,  "many  people 
saw  them  going,  and  recognized  them,  and  from  all  the 
towns  they  flocked  together  to  the  place  on  foot,  and  got 
there  before  them"  {Mk.  VI,  31  ff.).  They  all  seem  to 
have  agreed  with  the  conclusion  of  Nicodemus:  "We 
know  that  you  are  a  teacher  come  from  God"  {Jn.  Ill,  2). 
And  even  the  officers  who  were  sent  by  the  Chief  Priests 
and  Pharisees  to  arrest  him,  failed  to  do  so  and  gave  as 
their  excuse:  "No  man  ever  spoke  as  he  speaks"  (Jn. 
VII,  46). 

The  great  impression  and  stir  made  by  the  teachings  of 
Jesus  were  due  in  large  measure  to  the  unhappy  condi- 
tions of  the  times  and  the  need  of  just  such  a  message. 
fbusS  ^oi  th?^  '^^^  abuses  of  the  society  amid  which  he  lived  were  many 
times,  g^j^^  grave.    It  was  the  day  of  Roman  tyranny  and  polit- 

ical control,  with  the  farming  out  of  the  taxes,  to  the  in- 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER  47 

justice  and  deep  resentment  of  many.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  was  an  insidious  corruption  of  the  Temple  author- 
ities among  the  Jews,  which  was  supported  by  the  sanc- 
tion of  religious  tradition.  The  masses  were  almost 
completely  ostracized  religiously,  and  were  either  quite 
devoid  of  moral  desires  or  were  prevented  from  realizing 
them  through  the  ceremonial  of  the  day  or  their  want  of 
social  position.  The  attitude  of  the  Pharisees  was  mer- 
cenary, and  the  common  people  were  grasping.  Self- 
seeking  was  general,  and  social  organization  and  integra- 
tion were  quite  wanting,  since  the  people  had  no  clear 
and  worthy  ideal  to  unite  them. 

Hence,  as  soon  as  the  message  of  Jesus  came  to  be 
known,  it  was  felt  that  he  was  the  sympathetic  friend  of 
all  classes,  and  that  he  was  furnishing  spiritual  food  to 
those  who  had  been  slowly  starving  upon  ceremonial, 
tradition,  and  legalism.  A  rising  tide  of  ethical  and  social 
improvement  had  been  started  by  the  work  of  Hillel  and 
John  the  Baptist,  which  was  tremendously  accelerated 
by  the  stimulus  afforded  by  the  Master.  He  made  it  his 
especial  mission  to  protect  and  save  those  who  were  social 
outcasts,  and  it  was  his  efforts  to  reform  the  wrongs  of 
society  that  brought  about  his  death.  "He  is  stirring  up 
the  people  by  his  teaching  all  through  Judaea"  {Lk.  XXIH,  led  to  his  death, 
5),  was  the  accusation  of  the  Jews  before  Pilate,  and,  as 
Pilate  himself  said  later  to  the  Chief  Priests:  "You 
brought  this  man  before  me  charged  with  misleading  the 
people;  and  yet,  for  my  part,  though  I  examined  him 
before  you,  I  did  not  find  this  man  to  blame  for  any  of  the 
things  of  which  you  accuse  him"  {Lk.  XXIH,  14). 

Such  was  the  influence  of  Jesus  upon  the  people  of  his 


48  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

but  his  influence  owii  day,  and  the  impression  his  teachings  have  made  but 
creasing  ever  decpens  with  the  lapse  of  time.  His  teachings  have 
become  part  of  the  social  inheritance  of  the  race,  and  have 
entered  into  the  environment  of  all  his  heirs.  While,  as 
we  shall  see  in  a  later  chapter  (IX),  he  probably  never 
formulated  any  specific  legislation  for  society,  all  reforms 
and  progress  ever  since  have  been  in  keeping  with  the 
spirit  of  his  teachings.  In  this  sense,  we  may  say  that 
his  ideals  have  broken  down  the  artificial  walls  of  social 
caste,  effected  the  emancipation  of  serfs  and  slaves,  ele- 
vated woman  to  her  rightful  place  in  the  home  and  society 
at  large,  established  education  at  public  expense  and 
places  of  worship  for  the  masses,  produced  labor  and 
public  utility  legislation  and  regulations  for  sanitation 
and  public  health,  organized  all  types  of  charitable  in- 
stitutions, and  promoted  missionary  enterprises,  sociolog- 
ical organizations,  and  peace  conferences.  And  in  the 
future  the  real  achievements  of  civilization  will  be  in 
harmony  with  the  utterances  of  Jesus,  the  teacher. 

Summary.  —  While  Jesus  appears  in  the  earliest  gos- 
pel as  a  Messianic  enthusiast,  and  the  consmnmation 
of  the  Kingdom,  with  his  coming  in  power  and  glory,  is 
stressed,  the  world  to-day  finds  more  inspiration  in  the 
aspect  of  Jesus  as  the  great  moral  and  religious  teacher. 
Jesus  was  most  often  known  as  a  "teacher,"  and  he  was 
well  fitted  for  educational  labors  in  physique,  intellect, 
and  character.  The  best  approach  to  his  teachings  is 
found  in  a  study  of  his  educational  aim,  content,  method, 
organization,  and  results.  His  purpose  was  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  through  the  ideals  of 
"  love'*  and  "  service."  To  this  end,  he  taught  the  father- 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER  49 

hood  of  God  and  the  brotherhood  of  man.  His  methods 
of  teaching  were  informal  and  in  harmony  with  the  best 
ideas  of  to-day.  As  the  material  means  of  promoting  his 
teaching,  he  organized  his  "congregation.''  Society  in 
his  day  and  ever  since  has  been  greatly  influenced  by  his 
principles. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  READING 

Glover,  T.  R.    The  Jesus  of  History.    Chapters  II  and  III. 
Hinsdale,  B.  A.    Jesus  as  a  Teacher.    Chapters  II-IX. 
Jenks,  Jeremiah  W.    Social  Significance  of  the  Teachings  of  Jesus. 

Study  II. 
Kent,  C.  F.    The  Social  Teachings  of  the  Prophets  and  Jesus. 

Chapter  XVII. 
MoFFATT,  James.    The  Theology  of  the  Gospels. 
Peabody,  F.  G.    Jesus  Christ  and  the  Social  Question.    Chapter  I. 
Rhees,  Rush.    The  Life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.    Part  II,  Chapter 

III;  Part  III,  Chapter  II. 
Stevens,  G.  B.    The  Teaching  of  Jesus.    Chapters  III  and  IV. 
TiPSWORD,  H.  M.    Pedagogics  of  Jesus.    Part  I,  Chapters  I-IV; 

Part  III. 
Wayland,  J.  W.    Christ  as  a  Teacher, 


CHAPTER  III 

JESUS'  METHODS   OF  TEACHING 

The  Informality  of  Jesus'  Teaching.  —  Every  one  who 
has  been  in  school  and  college  can  recall  at  least  one  or 
two  great  teachers  that  he  has  had.  These  men  or  wo- 
men stand  out  clearly  in  his  memory  quite  separate  and 
distinct  from  the  many  others  he  has  known.  And  yet 
if  he  were  suddenly  challenged  to  tell  how  they  pro- 
duced this  effect  upon  him,  or  what  their  methods  of 
teaching  were,  he  would  for  a  moment  at  least  find  him- 
The  great         sclf  nonpluscd.    The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  a  great 

teacher  seems  to  r    »    ^^  i       i         tt» 

have  no  method,  tcachcr  superficially  seems  to  have  no  method.  His 
approach  is  so  informal  and  natural  that  he  apparently 
has  no  plan,  but  that  is  simply  because  the  highest  type 
of  art  is  the  art  which  conceals  art.  No  teacher  has 
ever  become  a  permanent  success  unless  he  has  carefully 
thought  out  his  method  of  presentation.  He  may  for 
a  time,  or  even  at  intervals,  be  able  to  show  considerable 
teaching  power,  but  he  will  be  constantly  meeting  with 
occasions,  or  even  long  periods,  when  the  bottom  seems 
to  drop  out  of  his  work. 

All  this  is  certainly  true  of  Jesus'  teaching.  Instead 
of  resorting  to  the  scholastic  and  set  methods  of  teachers 
of  his  day,  he  taught  most  informally.  He  seized  the 
psychological  moment,  whenever  it  arrived,  —  often 
when  he  was  standing  or  sitting  in  the  midst  of  a  group. 

so 


JESUS'  METHODS  OF  TEACHING  51 

For  example,  his  important  instruction  on  the  Mount 
is  thus  introduced:  ''When  he  had  sat  down,  his  dis- 
ciples came  up  to  him;  and  he  began  to  teach  them"  J^us  never 

■•■  ■••  '  "  mentioned     any 

(ML  V,  I  f.).  Again,  with  even  less  preamble,  his  teach-  teachhgP'*°  *° 
ing  is  thus  recorded:  ''Jesus,  answering  them,  said" 
{Lk.  VI,  3).  Once,  when  the  crowds  were  great,  "he 
got  into  a  boat,  and  sat  in  it  on  the  Sea"  and  taught  the 
assembly  on  the  shore  (Mk,  IV,  i).  And  in  all  his  teach- 
ing Jesus  never  mentioned  any  definite  theory  of  develop- 
ment that  he  was  following.  He  seems  to  have  used  no 
studied  plan  and  formulated  no  series  of  lessons,  but 
his  great  success  as  a  teacher  was,  nevertheless,  in  no 
small  measure  due  to  his  effective  method  of  presenta- 
tion. He  understood  how  to  arouse  the  interest  of  all 
his  hearers  and  cause  them  to  think  continuously  with- 
out boring  or  tiring  them.  After  this  process  of  thinking 
was  started,  he  skillfully  impressed  his  most  insistent 
thoughts  upon  them. 

His  Use  of  the  Problem  with  the  Disciples.  —  Like 
all  great  teachers,  Jesus  felt  that  real  thinking  begins 
with  a  problem.  We  never  stop  to  think,  until  we  are 
obHged  to  do  so  by  some  obstruction  to  mental  activity. 
As  long  as  our  consciousness  moves  along  smoothly  from  Thinking  always 

,  .  1  -1  .  1  1    r  1         •  begins     with     a 

one  thmg  to  another,  there  is  no  demand  for  productive  problem, 
thinking.  It  is  only  when  we  run  into  some  genuine 
difficulty  that  we  begin  to  reflect.  In  this  Hes  the  signifi- 
cance of  Aristotle's  statement  that  "all  knowledge  starts 
in  wonder,"  and  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher's  advice  to 
young  preachers  to  "cultivate  the  surprise  power." 
When  the  problem  is  once  presented,  the  curiosity 
aroused,  or  a  surprise  developed,  we  are  all  eager  to  find 


52 


WHAT  DID  JESUS   TEACH? 


and,  in  order  to 
instruct,    Jesus 
took,    advantage 
of   existing    per- 
plexities   of    liis 
hearers,  —  first 
place   in   the 
Kingdom, 


Immortal  Life: 


awakened 
queries,  — 


a  solution,  gratify  our  inquisitive  impulse,  or  seek  for 
the  sequel. 

Throughout  his  teaching  Jesus  seems  continually  to 
have  taken  advantage  of  such  a  stimulus  to  secure  the 
interest  of  his  hearers.  Often  he  utilized  a  perplexity 
that  had  long  been  troubling  them.  When  the  disciples, 
for  example,  mistaking  the  nature  of  the  Kingdom, 
queried  who  of  them  would  be  the  greatest  there,  Jesus 
seized  the  opportunity  of  teaching  service  as  the  real 
test  {Mk.  IX,  34  ff.;  Lh  XXII,  24  £f.).  Similarly,  to 
Peter's  inquiry  as  to  how  often  he  should  forgive  his 
friend,  when  wronged  by  him,  Jesus  developed  the  lesson 
of  infinite  patience  by  means  of  the  story  of  the  imfor- 
giving  servant  {ML  XVIII,  21  ff.).  His  method  of  teach- 
ing the  disciples,  as  well  as  the  rich  young  man,  the 
responsibilities  of  wealth,  is  even  more  skillful.  The  man, 
in  genuine  doubt,  threw  himself  upon  his  knees  before 
Jesus  and  asked  what  he  must  do  to  gain  Immortal  Life. 
The  Master  recalled  to  him  the  formal  test  of  the  com- 
mandments, and  when  he  declared  that  he  had  always 
observed  these,  laid  before  him  the  more  positive  and 
difficult  requirement  of  self-sacrifice.  Then,  turning  to 
the  disciples,  he  showed  them  the  danger  of  being  en- 
grossed in  worldly  wealth,  and,  in  response  to  their  amaze- 
ment and  inquiries,  he  taught  anew  the  great  value  of 
membership  in  the  Kingdom  {Mk,  X,  17  ff.). 

On  the  other  hand,  sometimes  Jesus  deliberately 
awakened  the  question  in  the  minds  of  his  disciples  or 
others  himself.  "Simon,  son  of  John,  do  you  love  me?" 
{Jn.  XXI,  15)  he  asked  Peter  three  times,  and  when 
that  apostle  was  somewhat  hurt  and  aroused  by  his 


JESUS'  METHODS  OF  TEACHING  53 

insistence,  he  revealed  to  him  the  full  consequences  of  SSXiSp!'  "^ 
his  discipleship.  Sometimes  the  problem  he  raised  is 
not  directly  expressed  in  the  text,  but,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  parable  of  The  Sower,  it  is  impHed  in  the  inquiry  of 
the  disciples  as  to  why  he  spoke  in  parables  and  leads 
to  Jesus'  explanation  of  the  metaphor  (ML  XIII,  4  &.).  f^^^^  °*  ^he 
The  most  striking  illustration  of  his  method,  however, 
is  found  in  his  conversation  with  the  woman  of  Samaria 
at  the  well  {Jn.  TV,  7  ff.)-  She  is  first  surprised  at  finding 
that  he,  a  Jew,  would  speak  to  a  Samaritan.  Next,  her 
interest  is  aroused  concerning  the  ''hving  water"  that  "Jibing  water"; 
will  relieve  her  from  thirst  and  toil,  but  still  she  does 
not  grasp  the  situation.  Then  by  a  skillful  question, 
followed  by  information  concerning  her  private  life,  the 
heart  of  the  woman  is  reached.  The  discovery  of  the 
character  of  the  person  to  whom  she  is  talking,  is  fol- 
lowed by  another  question  and  further  instruction,  and 
the  way  is  paved  for  the  revelation  of  himself  to  her  as 
the  Messiah. 

His  Utilization  of  Hostile  Inquiries.  —  Not  infre- 
quently, however,  the  most  effective  instruction  was 
given  by  Jesus  in  his  reply  to  some  incisive  inquiry  of 
hostile  critics.  They  had  raised  the  question  in  the  hope 
of  making  him  trouble  or  impaling  him  upon  the  horns 
of  a  dilemma.  In  his  various  encounters  with  the  Phar- 
isees, Sadducees,  Herodians,  and  scribes,  not  only  was 
the  animus  of  his  opponents  exposed  and  silenced  (ML 
XXII,  46),  but,  as  a  result  of  the  attention  attracted, 
a  favorable  occasion  for  teaching  some  important  lessons 
was  afforded.  The  disregard  of  his  disciples  for  formal 
observances  and  ceremonial,  such  as  fasting  or  purifi- 


54 


WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 


or  utilized  ques- 
tions of  his 
critics,  — 


breaking 
Sabbath, 


the 


the  woman  with 
seven  husbands, 


cation  {Mk.  II,  i8  ff.  and  VII,  2ff.),  sometimes  gave  his 
enemies  an  opportunity  to  raise  questions  intended  to 
discredit  him,  but  Jesus  refuted  the  impHed  criticisms 
and  used  the  occasion  for  the  teaching  of  much  higher 
ideals.  Often  an  attempt  seems  to  have  been  made  to 
show  that  his  attitude  toward  the  Sabbath  was  sacrile- 
gious. The  Pharisees  asked  why  his  disciples  were  al- 
lowed to  pluck  corn  on  the  Sabbath  (Mk.  II,  23  ff . ;  Mt. 
XII,  I  ff.)  or  why  he  effected  cures  on  the  sacred  day 
(Mk.  Ill,  I  E.;ML  XII,  9  Q.;LL  XIII,  10 ff.;  XIV,  5  ff.), 
but  in  each  instance  their  shaft  was  turned  aside  by  his 
citing  some  analogous  instance  either  from  their  eccles- 
iastical history  or  from  everyday  life,  and  then  the  true 
meaning  of  the  Sabbath  was  expounded.  Jesus  sub- 
stituted for  the  institutional  conception  its  physical  and 
moral  value  for  the  individual.  Instead  of  a  day  of 
repression  and  bondage,  with  the  sweeping  ancient  pro- 
hibitions, he  made  it  God's  good  gift  to  man,  a  day  of 
rest  and  growth,  with  a  rich  and  positive  significance. 

More  subtle  was  the  logical  puzzle  that  was  pro- 
pounded to  Jesus  by  the  Sadducees  in  the  supposititious 
case  of  the  woman  who  had  married  seven  husbands 
(Mk.  XII,  19  ff.).  "At  the  resurrection  whose  wife  will 
she  be?"  they  inquired.  They  hoped  thus  to  show  the 
absurdity  of  a  Hfe  beyond  the  grave,  but  the  Master 
easily  disposed  of  their  contention  by  asserting  a  great 
spiritual  truth  and  corroborating  it  from  their  own  Scrip- 
tures. "Is  not  the  reason  of  your  mistake,"  answered 
Jesus,  "your  ignorance  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the 
power  of  God?  When  men  rise  from  the  dead,  there  is 
no  marrying  or  being  married;  but  they  are  as  angels  in 


JESUS '  METHODS  OF  TEACHING  55 

Heaven.  As  to  the  dead  and  the  fact  that  they  rise, 
have  you  never  read  in  the  Book  of  Moses,  in  the  passage 
about  the  Bush,  how  God  spake  to  him  thus  —  'I  am 
the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the 
God  of  Jacob'?  He  is  not  God  of  dead  men,  but  of 
living.    You  are  greatly  mistaken." 

But  probably  the  most  skillful  use  of  material  fur- 
nished by  his  enemies  and  the  instance  most  often  quoted, 
is  found  in  the  incident  where  the  Pharisees  tried  to  in- 
volve Jesus  in  a  political  dilemma  {Mk.  XH,  13  ff.;  Mt. 
XXH,  15  ff.;  Lk.  XX,  20  f.).  "Are  we  right  in  paying 
taxes  to  the  Emperor  or  not?"  they  asked,  expecting  to  ^^l^^J-^^^^  ^° 
put  him  in  bad  odor  with  the  Herodians  or  the  Roman 
government,  according  as  he  answered  "yes"  or  "no." 
But,  instead  of  giving  a  categorical  reply,  Jesus  called  for 
a  silver  coin  and  asked:  "Whose  head  and  title  are 
these?"  "The  Emperor's,"  they  said.  "Then,"  Jesus 
replied,  "pay  to  the  Emperor  what  belongs  to  the  Em- 
peror, and  to  God  what  belongs  to  God."  By  this  means 
he  disowned  any  political  partisanship  and  revealed  the 
essentially  spiritual  nature  of  his  mission.  "And  they 
wondered  at  him." 

His  Profound  Knowledge  of  Human  Nature.  —  Thus 
Jesus  constantly  displayed  consummate  ability  in  util- 
izing a  question  to  arouse  interest,  and  in  raising  iso- 
lated questions  and  cases  to  the  level  of  some  great  prin- 
ciple and  making  them  the  occasion  for  impressive  dec- 
larations of  profound  religious  truths.  In  all  these  cases, 
whether  dealing  with  honest  seekers  after  truth  or  mere 
controversialists  that  had  to  be  silenced,  the  Master, 
jifter  the  fashion  of  every  great  teacher,  showed  a  pro- 


56 


WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 


Jeius'    under- 
standing   of 
men's   motives, 


as  revealed  in 
the  cospels, 


found  knowledge  of  human  nature.  He  saw  into  the 
hearts  of  all  men  with  a  keenness  that  has  scarcely  been 
equaled  by  the  greatest  educators  of  modem  times — Pes- 
talozzi,  Thomas  Arnold,  Horace  Mann  —  and  the  skillful 
dialectic,  by  which  he  developed  the  truth  or  error  of  the 
inmost  thoughts  of  humanity,  and  showed  them  to  be 
but  one  phase  of  the  entire  truth,  was  worthy  of  his  fa- 
mous pagan  forerunner,  Socrates.  This  insight  into  the 
mental  constitution  and  motives  of  men  was  repeatedly 
revealed  both  in  defining  the  problem  and  assisting  the 
questioner  to  solve  it  through  the  apparent  medium  of 
his  past  experience  and  history.  Discovering  the  soul 
experiences  of  each  person  with  whom  he  came  in  con- 
tact, he  led  them  out  into  an  harmonious  development, 
and  thereby  produced  a  unity  of  personality  and  a  reali- 
zation of  the  ideal  society. 

Jesus'  remarkable  intuition  and  knowledge  of  mental 
processes  is  repeatedly  indicated  in  the  introduction  to 
his  various  sayings.  In  the  gospels  we  frequently  read 
such  phrases:  "Knowing  their  thoughts,  Jesus  ex- 
claimed" {ML  IX,  4);  "Jesus,  however,  was  aware  of 
what  was  passing  in  their  minds,  and  said  to  them"  (Mt, 
XII,  25) ;  "Jesus,  however,  knew  what  was  in  their  minds, 
and  said"  {Lk.  VI,  8);  "Jesus,  knowing  of  the  discussion 
that  was  occupying  their  thoughts,  took  hold  of  a  little 
child,  and  placed  it  beside  him,  and  then  said  to  them" 
(Lk.  IX,  47) ;  "When  Jesus  became  aware  of  the  way  in 
which  they  were  debating"  {Lk.  V,  22);  "Knowing  their 
hyprocrisy,  Jesus  said  to  them"  {Mk.  XII,  15);  "Jesus 
knew  from  the  first  who  they  were  that  did  not  believe  in 
him  and  who  it  was  that  would  betray  him;  and  he 


JESUS'  METHODS  OF  TEACHING  57 

added"  {Jn,  VI,  64).  And  his  natural  insight  is  crys- 
tallized in  that  passage  from  the  Fourth  Gospel  (II,  25) : 
"He  could  read  every  heart,  and  he  did  not  need  that 
others  should  tell  him  what  men  were;  for  he  could  of 
himself  read  what  was  in  men." 

The  Adaptation  of  His  Method  to  the  Individual 
Cases.  —  Thus,  reading  the  thoughts  and  feelings  of  all 
with  whom  he  came  in  contact,  Jesus  adapted  his  stim- 
ulus to  the  needs  of  each  particular  individual.  The 
questions  he  asked  and  the  material  he  presented  varied 
in  keeping  with  the  age,  race,  affiliation,  temperament, 
and  experience  of  the  person  he  was  addressing.  To  a 
great  extent  he  determined  the  methods  he  used  by  their 
mental  dispositions,  —  whether  they  were  ready  hearers, 
bearing  even  as  close  a  relationship  as  the  disciples,  or 
were  captious  and  controversial,  actually  hostile,  or  ^*e\^^j°'=^s^*^J 
merely  indifferent.  But  while  much  of  his  teaching  was  ^*<=^  ^*«  ~ 
adapted  to  their  general  attitude,  there  were  many 
other  factors  to  be  considered  in  each  case  and  an  infinite 
variety  of  treatment  was  required.  Consequently,  his 
range  of  topics  seems  to  have  been  almost  unlimited. 
He  appealed  to  the  book  of  Nature,  quite  as  much  as  to 
the  book  of  the  Law;  to  persons  and  things,  as  well  as  to 
books.  He  referred  to  the  present  and  past,  the  near 
and  remote,  the  concrete  and  abstract. 

The  illustrations  that  Jesus  used  impressed  his  hearers 
through  their  simplicity,  directness,  and  familiarity,  and 
greatly  illiunined  and  focused  his  thought.  He  made 
numerous  applications  of  everyday  matters  and  inci- 
dents, and  utilized  current  activities,  social  and  indus-  ^^^  ^^^^^^  ^^^^ 
trial,  as  material  for  his  illustrations.    The  metaphors  (?S.  *""" 


58  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

based  upon  organic  life  that  were  employed  in  his  ''bread 
of  life"  {Jn.  VI,  35),  "true  vine  and  the  branches"  {Jn. 
XV,  i),  ''salt  of  the  earth"  {Mt.  V,  13),  "Hght  of  the 
world"  {Mt.  V,  14),  and  similar  expressions  must  have 
made  a  universal  appeal.  Likewise,  his  allusions  to 
social  customs  of  the  times,  such  as  the  arrangement  of 
the  seating  at  a  feast  or  wedding  according  to  social 
status,  to  make  humility  concrete  {Lk.  XIV,  7  fif.)>  the 
necessity  for  dress  suitable  to  the  occasion,  to  teach  spir- 
itual fitness  {Mt.  XXII,  11  ff.),  and  the  invitations 
given  to  those  who  could  reciprocate,  as  a  contrast  to  the 
motive  of  unselfish  kindness  {Lk.  XIV,  12  ff.),  were  within 
the  experience  of  every  one.  Similarly  effective  were 
his  figurative  references  to  industrial  Hfe,  such  as  the 
sower  or  spreading  the  truth  {Mt.  XIII,  4  ff.),  the 
tares  or  opposition  that  the  truth  was  bound  to  meet 
{Mt.  XIII,  25  ff.),  the  mustard  seed  or  remarkable 
spread  of  truth  {Mt.  XIII,  32),  and  the  leaven  or  natural 
development  of  truth  {Mt.  XIII,  33).  The  people  of 
Jesus'  day  would,  too,  have  instantly  recognized  the 
significance  of  the  discovery  of  a  buried  treasure  by  a 
farmer  {Mt.  XIII,  44),  the  securing  of  pearls  by  deep- 
sea  diving  {Mt.  XIII,  45  f. ),  the  separation  of  fish  taken 
in  a  net  {Mt.  XIII,  47  ff.),  the  thief  and  the  shepherd 
{Jn.  X,  I  ff.),  the  especial  need  of  the  sick  for  a  doctor 
{Mt.  IX,  12),  and  the  comer  stone  of  a  foundation  {Lk, 
XX,  17). 

Sometimes,  however,  he  recognized  that  his  hearers 
were  so  limited  spiritually  that  it  would  be  impossible 
for  them  to  grasp  his  meaning.  For  example,  it  is  re- 
corded that  "Jesus  used  to  speak  to  the  people  of  his 


JESUS'  METHODS  OF  TEACHING  59 

message,  as  far  as  they  were  able  to  receive  it"  {Mk. 
IV,  33).  He  himself  said:  ''It  is  not  every  one  who  can 
accept  this  teaching,  but  only  those  who  have  been 
enabled  to  do  so.  .  .  .  Let  him  accept  who  can"  {Mt. 
XIX,  II  f.).  Agam,  according  to  the  Fourth  Gospel,  ^^  ^^,  "l^^t 
he  declared:  "I  have  still  much  to  say  to  you,  but  you  hbuacS'""'' 
cannot  bear  it  now"  (Jn.  XVI,  12).  At  times  the  limi- 
tation would  appear  to  be  emotional,  and  Jesus  seems 
to  feel  that  his  teachings  could  not  be  received  because 
of  the  moral  disposition  of  certain  hearers.  John  de- 
picts him  as  saying:  "My  teaching  is  not  my  own;  it  is 
his  who  sent  me.  If  any  one  is  willing  to  do  God's  will, 
he  will  find  out  whether  my  teaching  is  from  God" 
(Jn.  VII,  17).  But  whenever  he  was  obliged  to  with- 
hold his  teachings,  because  those  about  him  were  un- 
prepared or  unworthy  to  receive  them,  he  strove  by 
careful  selection  and  repetition  of  material,  and  choice 
of  methods  and  illustrations,  to  build  up  an  understand- 
ing and  interest  in  them.  This  is  especially  seen  in  the 
case  of  his  slow-minded  disciples,  who  could  not  under- 
stand how  his  teachings  differed  from  certain  current 
Messianic  conceptions. 

His  Recognition  of  "  Apperception."  —  Thus  through- 
out his  teaching  Jesus  recognized  that  every  new 
idea  or  group  of  ideas  can  be  grasped  only  through 
those  already  in  consciousness.  The  method  of  teaching 
based  upon  this  has  been  utilized  by  every  successful 
educator.  Even  the  "natural-born"  teacher,  who 
prides  himself  upon  being  enslaved  to  no  patent  method, 
relies  for  his  results  largely  upon  an  appeal,  conscious  j^g^g  mjij^ed 
or  unconscious,  to  the  pupil's  previous  experience.    The  ''^apiSrSpSon"^ 


6o  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

principle  underlying  this  method  was  called  "apper- 
ception," by  the  great  philosopher,  Herbart.  The  first 
step  in  the  Herbartian  method  of  instruction,  "prepara- 
tion," depends  upon  it,  and  it  forms  the  central  doctrine 
of  his  entire  educational  system.  There  is,  however, 
nothing  new  in  the  principle,  and,  although  the  activity 
side  has  come  to  be  emphasized  by  the  term,  "associa- 
tion" or  "assimilation"  would  have  expressed  the  idea 
quite  as  well.  In  accordance  with  this  doctrine,  the 
teacher  can  hope  to  secure  interest  and  the  attention  of 
the  pupil  to  any  new  idea  or  set  of  ideas  and  have  him 
retain  it,  only  through  making  use  of  his  body  of  related 
knowledge.  Hence,  in  his  teaching,  Jesus  is  always 
concerned  in  presenting  new  material  in  such  a  way 
that  it  can  be  "  apperceived "  or  incorporated  with  the 
old.  In  each  case,  however,  he  seems  to  feel  that  this 
appeal  to  similar  ideas  in  the  pupil,  as  we  have  seen 
(pp.  51  f.),  can  be  effected  only  by  means  of  a  problem, 
which  is  a  necessity  that  Herbartianism  has  failed  to 
recognize. 

Most  of  those  among  whom  Jesus  taught  were  Jews, 
and,  being  of  the  same  origin,  he  was  able  to  understand 
the  content  of  their  "apperception  mass."  He  was 
acquainted  with  the  workings  of  their  mind,  their  na- 
tional religion,  sects,  and  factions,  the  character  of 
their  teaching,  their  political  ambitions,  and  other 
traditions,  and  was  able  to  use  this  knowledge  effectively 
in  his  instruction.  He  did  not  repudiate  the  Judaistic 
laws,  customs,  and  beliefs,  but  developed  the  spiritual 

by  reinterpreting  ^^^^  ^^  ^^^^  ^^^  iusistcd  upou  their  inner  meaning. 

^ip^iw!-      He  generally  based  his  teachings  upon  the  Hebrew 


JESUS'  METHODS  OF  TEACHING  6l 

Scriptures  and  illustrated  and  reenforced  his  truths  by 
an  appeal  to  their  authority,  but  he  allied  himself  with 
the  moral  interpretation  of  the  prophets,  rather  than 
with  the  legaHstic  tendencies  of  the  scribes.  He  treated 
the  Hebrew  writings  not  as  a  body  of  rules,  but  as  a 
revelation  of  God's  purpose,  and  stressed  their  essence 
more  than  their  form.  He  strove  to  remove  the  external 
element  and  reveal  the  underlying  truth. 

One  of  the  best  examples  of  this  new  emphasis  upon 
old  material  is  found  in  the  case  of  Sabbath  observance,  Sabbath  ob- 

servance, 

already  mentioned  (p.  54).  This  *'day  of  rest"  was 
strictly  construed  under  the  old  Law  (see  Ex.  XX, 
8ff.;  XXm,  12;  XXXI,  12  ff.;  XXXIV,  21;  XXXV, 
iff.;  Deut.  V,  12  ff.),  and  was  later  elaborated  by  the 
scribes,  but  Jesus  allowed  his  disciples  to  pluck  corn 
on  that  day  {Mk.  II,  23  ff.;  ML  XII,  i  ff.),  and  defended 
his  action  by  appealing  to  ecclesiastical  precedent.  He 
then  added  his  own  principle  that  the  Sabbath  is  not 
an  end  in  itself,  but  a  means  to  an  end,  —  man's  real 
interest  and  needs.  Jesus'  attitude  toward  sacrifice, 
the  central  feature  of  the  Jewish  ceremonial,  was  simi- 
lar. He  attended  the  feasts  of  the  Passover  and  the 
Tabernacles,  and  other  festivals  where  sacrifices  were  g^cnfices 
offered  {Mk.  XXII,  7  ff.;  Jn.  IV,  45;  V,  i;  VI,  4;  VII, 
2  ff.;  XI,  55  f.;  XIII,  29),  but  while  he  recognized  the 
customs,  he  sought  through  them  to  lead  his  hearers 
to  a  love  of  God  and  mercy  toward  their  fellows.  "To 
love  God,"  he  declared,  "with  all  one's  heart,  and  with 
all  one's  understanding,  and  with  all  one's  strength, 
and  to  love  one's  neighbor  as  one  loves  oneself  is  far 
beyond  all  burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices"  {Mk.  XH, 


62  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

33).  In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  he  enjoined  his 
followers  to  be  reconciled  to  any  of  their  fellows  they 
had  wronged  before  performing  the  sacrifices  {ML  V, 
23  f.).  Later,  he  twice  recalled  God's  preference  for 
mercy  to  sacrifice  (ML  IX,  13;  XII,  7).  Again,  in  re- 
gard to  fasting,  which  was  considered  such  a  mark  of 
piety  among  the  Jews  (Lk.  XVIII,  12),  Jesus  did  not 
issue  a  prohibition,  but  he  brought  out  the  inner  mean- 
ing of  real  contrition  by  requesting:  ''When  one  of  you 
fasts,  let  him  not  be  seen  by  men,  but  by  his  Father 
who  dwells  in  secret''  (ML  VI,  18).     The  Jewish  law 

clean?  ^^  "°'  ^^  ''clcan  and  unclean"  he  likewise  explained  as  appli- 
cable only  in  a  moral  and  rehgious  sense  by  saying: 
"It  is  what  comes  out  from  a  man  that  defiles  him,  for 
it  is  within,  out  of  the  hearts  of  men,  that  there  come 
evil  thoughts"  {ML  VII,  20  f.). 

This  tendency  of  Jesus  to  build  the  new  upon  the  old 
by  bringing  out  its  spiritual  significance  is  seen  in  his 
method  of  dealing  with  the  moral  commands  of  Judaism, 
as  well  as  with  its  observances.  Here  he  frequently 
contrasted  his  own  interpretation  of  the  spirit  of  a 
commandment  with  the  old  Hteral  form.    Thus,  while 

murder,  the  traditional  law  read,  "Thou  shalt  not  commit  mur- 

der," and  "Whoever  commits  murder  shall  be  hable 
to  answer  for  it  to  the  (local)  court,"  he  maintained 
that  the  fault  lies  in  the  moral  condition  that  may  lead 
to  murder,  and  declared  {ML  V,  22)  that  "any  one  who 
cherishes  anger  against  his  brother  shall  be  liable  to 
answer  for  it  to  the  Messianic  court."     His  attitude 

adultery,  toward  thc  prohibition  of  adultery  was  similar,  for  he 

held  that  "any  one  who  looks  at  a  woman  with  an  im- 


JESUS'  METHODS  OF  TEACHING  63 

pure  intention  has  already  committed  adultery  with 

her  in  his  heart"  (ML  V,  28).    Agam,  he  stated  that 

not  only  must  one  not  break  his  oath,  but  he  must 

keep  his  word  and  hold  it  sacred  and  inviolate  without 

swearing  to  it  {ML  V,  33).     He  further  maintained 

that  the  old  exaction  of  "an  eye  for  an  eye  and  a  tooth 

for  a  tooth"  should  yield  to  the  principle  of  patient  ^^  vengeance, 

endurance  (ML  V,  38).     More  characteristic  than  all 

was  his  universalizing  the  sphere  of  kindliness,   and 

extending  the  command  of  love  to  enemies  as  well  as 

neighbors  (ML  V,  43  ff.)- 

His  Principle  of  "  Fulfillment."  —  This  use  of  "ap- 
perception," or  the  formation  of  "a  bond  between  the 
new  and  the  old,"  as  it  is  generally  described  in  modern 
pedagogy,  was  referred  to  by  Jesus  in  his  principle  of 
"fulfillment"  or  completion.  As  an  introduction  to 
the  instances  just  quoted,  Matthew  (V,  17)  records  him 
as  saying:  "Do  not  think  that  I  have  come  to  do  away 
with  the  Law  or  the  Prophets;  I  have  not  come  to  do  ?J2?s"he  treaTed 
away  with  them,  but  to  complete  them."  In  some  cases,  practS'^i^'pJi- 
however,  Jesus  frankly  treated  the  traditional  practice  *'*^°'^' 
as  preparatory  and  partial,  suitable  legislation  for  the 
times,  but,  with  the  advance  of  civilization,  somewhat 
subject  to  revision.  This  is  indicated  especially  in  his 
reply  to  the  question  concerning  divorce  (Mk.  X,  2  ff.). 
"It  was  owing  to  your  hardness  of  heart,"  said  Jesus, 
"  that  Moses  gave  you  this  direction."  Then  he  cited 
an  earlier  law  and  added:  "What  God  himself  has 
yoked  together,  man  must  not  separate."  Such  an 
attitude  appears  to  be  largely  true,  too,  of  his  dis- 
placement of  "an  eye  for  an  eye,"  "hating  one's  ene- 


64  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

mies,"  and  other  modifications  of  the  old  law  mentioned 
above. 

This  enrichment,  and  at  times  even  modification,  of 
the  traditional  Law  is  a  distinctive  feature  of  Jesus' 
method.  While  he  based  much  of  his  teaching  upon  the 
current  principles,  he  was  never  satisfied  merely  with 
the  authority  of  the  past.  With  him  the  new  was  of 
even  more  importance  than  the  old.  He  emphasized 
the  inner  meaning  of  the  observances  and  commands 
of  Judaism,  and  insisted  upon  a  more  complete  revela- 
tion of  the  love  of  God.  All  six  passages  dealing  with 
his  ''fulfillment"  of  the  Jewish  Law,  are  introduced 
with  the  words:  ''You  have  heard  that  it  was  said,  but 
I  say  to  you"  (ML  V,  21  f.;  27  f.;  31  f.;  33  f.;  38  f.;  43  f.). 
Sdbes^^^*^  ^^^  Therein  his  teaching  differed  radically  from  that  of  the 
scribes,  who  made  legalistic  renderings  after  much  study 
of  the  Law  and  the  body  of  tradition.  They  quoted, 
inferred,  and  gave  allegorical  interpretations  of  a  mooted 
passage,  quibbling  over  external  matters,  like  the 
breadth  of  phylacteries,  the  ceremonial  washing  of  cups, 
jugs,  and  copper  pans,  and  the  tithing  of  mint,  anise, 
and  cumin,  but  lacked  in  spontaneity,  freshness,  vigor, 
and  originality.  Their  adherence  to  precedent  and 
authority  was  slavish.  In  contrast  to  this,  Jesus  seems 
not  so  much  to  borrow  and  make  inferences  from  the 
traditional  Law  as  to  speak  from  conviction  or  an  intui- 
tion of  the  truth.  Li  his  teaching,  there  is  no  delay  or 
hesitation,  no  feeble  reasoning  and  cautious  deduction, 
but  a  flashing  of  conviction.  He  seems  to  assume  that 
the  truths  he  uttered  were  truths  of  man's  own  nature 
and  were  not  to  be  made  more  evident  by  argument. 


JESUS'  METHODS  OF  TEACHING  65 

He  speaks  with  a  finality  that  has  made  his  principles 

seem  inevitable  to  the  human  conscience  of  every  age 

and  under  all  circiunstances;  they  contain  a  certain 

urgency    that   renders    them   impressive   and   solemn. 

Hence  we  are  not  surprised  to  learn  that  in  the  syna-  *u"f5rity  *'5f  ^ 

gogue  at  Capernaum,  ^'the  people  were  amazed  at  his  ^^iso^^- 

teaching,  for  he  taught  them  like  one  who  had  authority, 

and  not  like  the  Teachers  of  the  Law'^  (Mk.  I,  22). 

His  Use  of  Epigrams  and  Aphorisms.  —  Looking  to 
the  external  form  in  which  Jesus  clothed  his  teachings, 
it  has  been  easy  to  see  that  he  largely  used  epigrammatic 
and  aphoristic  expressions.  He  uttered  sententious 
maxims,  gnomes,  or  proverbs,  and  his  language  was 
often  paradoxical  and  hyperbolical.  These  types  of  ^rms^of^eius' 
expression,  which  were  characteristic  of  the  Orient  in  gj^^^^^s  ^^^^^^^ 
general  and  of  the  Jews  in  particular,  are  especially  adie,*""*  ^^'^" 
adapted  to  ethical  and  religious  teaching.  Jesus  used 
them  with  complete  mastery  and  great  efficiency. 
Numerous  sayings  of  this  sort  will  at  once  occur  to  any 
student  of  the  gospels.  Such,  for  example,  were  the 
numerous  suggestions  he  made  through  a  contrast  of 
the  higher  and  lower  meaning  of  terms,  such  as:  "Who- 
ever wishes  to  save  his  life,  will  lose  it,  and  whoever,  for 
my  sake  and  for  the  sake  of  the  Good  News,  will  lose 
his  life,  shall  save  it"  (Mk.  VHI,  35);  "many  who  are 
first  now  will  then  be  last,  and  the  last  will  be  first" 
(Mk.  X,  31;  Ml.  XX,  16);  "many  are  called,  but  few 
chosen"  (ML  XXH,  14);  and  "every  one  who  exalts 
himself  will  be  humbled,  and  he  who  humbles  himself 
will  be  exalted"  (Lk.  XIV,  11). 

A  somewhat  different,  but  equally  attractive,  tjrpe 


66  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

of  expression  is  that  furnished  by  the  metaphorical 
allusions  of  Jesus  to  everyday  life.  This  would  include 
a  number  of  aphorisms  found  in  Mark,  among  which 
may  be  cited:  *'It  is  not  those  who  are  in  health  that 
need  a  doctor,  but  those  who  are  ill.  I  did  not  come  to 
call  the  religious,  but  the  outcast"  (II,  17).  "No  man 
ever  sews  a  piece  of  unshrunk  cloth  on  an  old  garment; 
if  he  does,  the  patch  tears  away  from  it  —  the  new  from 
the  old  —  and  a  worse  rent  is  made.  And  no  man  ever 
puts  new  wine  into  old  wineskins;  if  he  does,  the  wine 
will  burst  the  skins,  and  both  the  wine  and  the  skins 
are  lost"  (II,  21  f.).  "When  a  kingdom  is  divided 
against  itself,  it  cannot  last;  and  when  a  household  is 
divided  against  itself,  it  will  not  be  able  to  last"  (III,  24). 
This  figurative  and  epigrammatic  type  of  speech 
appears  everywhere  throughout  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
did  iSft  fdopt^'^  ^^^  ^^^  statement  in  the  form  of  a  story  or  parable, 
the  parable.  which  is  SO  charactcristic  of  him,  was  not  used  at  first. 
Early  in  his  ministry  he  proclaimed  the  great  facts  of 
the  gospel  —  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  the  call  to  discipleship  and  sonship  —  to  large 
crowds,  and  made  his  declarations  in  direct  terms.  But 
the  results  of  his  first  preaching  tours  were  most  dis- 
couraging. There  was  an  almost  total  want  of  response 
from  the  masses  of  the  people,  and  even  those  nearest 
to  Jesus  failed  to  understand,  while  the  opposition  of 
the  Pharisees  became  increasingly  bitter.  Consequently, 
he  felt  more  and  more  impelled  to  narrow  the  persons 
addressed  to  the  disciples  and  to  adopt  a  more  effective 
method  of  teaching  than  that  of  direct  and  immediate 
statement.    This  concentration  of  his  audience  did  not 


JESUS'  METHODS  OF  TEACHING  67 

imply  that  he  was  any  less  interested  in  all  mankind, 
but  the  step  was  taken  in  the  hope  of  securing  a  nucleus 
for  his  message  by  the  intensive  culture  of  a  few  devoted 
followers.  He  felt  that  a  special  training  was  needed 
to  elucidate  thoughts  that  were  so  far  in  advance  of  the 
times. 

His  Adoption  and  Mastery  of  the  Parable.  —  The 
method  chosen  for  communicating  this  training  was  that 
of  the  parable.  This  form  of  teaching  was  in  common 
use  among  the  Jews,  but  it  was  mastered  by  Jesus  to  such 
an  extent  as  to  make  it  peculiarly  his  own.  While  its 
material  is  not  necessarily  historic  or  real,  but  is  often 
fictitious  and  invented,  it  is  always  harmonious  with  na-  The  parables  of 

<•  i      1  •!       J^sus  do  not  re- 

ture  and  life,  and  at  least  within  the  bounds  of  probabil-  [fte  real  events, 

'  ^  but  are  in  har- 

ity.  A  parable  does,  moreover,  distinguish  between  its  '"^^^y  ^'^^  ^"«' 
essence  or  underlying  spiritual  truth  and  the  mere  form 
of  its  story,  as  a  myth,  which  identifies  the  truth  with 
its  own  creations,  does  not.  It  differs  from  a  fable  in 
being  more  serious  and  dignified,  and  in  its  adaptation  to 
moral  and  religious  instruction.  A  parable  cannot,  on 
the  other  hand,  be  interpreted  entirely  as  an  allegory, 
with  each  character  and  incident  treated  as  a  special 
symbol.  The  attempt  of  some  literalists  to  do  this  has 
been  productive  of  most  fanciful  results.  Each  parable 
is  intended  to  teach  one  single  truth,  and  the  point  may 
rest  in  the  entire  picture  or  in  some  single  aspect,  and  it 
is  not  essential  to  offer  any  explanation  of  the  rest.  The 
parables  would  be  ruined,  if  forced  to  "go  on  all  fours." 
The  parable  was  used  by  Jesus  as  the  most  convenient 
instrument  at  hand  for  conveying  to  a  few  the  secret  of 
his  Messiahship,  without  disclosing  it  to  the  many.    The 


68  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

imminence  of  the  Kingdom  and  its  small  and  obscure 

beginnings,  as  contrasted  with  its  ultimate  and  certain 

triumph;  are  all  readily  portrayed  through  the  parabolic 

and  are  cai-      medium.    Their  form  was  such  as  to  attract  attention, 

culated    to    at-  ' 

Ind'ii^press'the  cause  reflection,  and  impress  the  memory  of  the  hearer. 

memory.  rpj^^  radical  teachings  of  the  Master  could  not  be  grasped 

superficially  or  hastily,  and  the  picturesqueness  of  the 
parable  was  adapted  to  holding  the  truth  in  men's  minds 
imtil  they  grew  to  the  point  of  understanding  it.  And  it 
not  only  preserved  the  revelation  for  those  not  yet  pre- 
pared to  receive  it  and  kept  them  from  closing  their 
minds  to  it,  as  a  direct  presentation  could  not  have  done, 
but  through  its  attractiveness  it  gave  permanence  and 
currency  to  the  teachings  contained  therein.  Hence  it 
is  recorded  that  "the  mass  of  people  listened  to  Jesus 
with  delight"  {Mk.  XII,  37),  and  "were  filled  with  amaze- 
ment at  his  teaching"  {ML  VII,  28),  and  that  the  officers 
who  were  sent  to  arrest  him  declared:  "No  man  ever 
spoke  as  he  speaks!"  {Jn.  VII,  46). 
The  recorded  parables  of  Jesus  begin  with  that  of  The 

^7^^^^^  Sower  (ML  IV,  3  ff.;  ML  XIII,  3  ff.;  LL  VIII,  5  ff.), 

numberr^  ""  which  hc  spokc  to  the  great  multitude  by  the  sea  and 
afterward  interpreted  for  his  closest  followers.  This 
method  of  teaching  proved  most  successful,  and  we  are 
told:  "with  many  such  parables  Jesus  used  to  speak 
to  the  people  of  his  Message  as  far  as  they  were  able  to 
receive  it;  and  to  them  he  never  used  to  speak  except  in 
parables;  but  in  private  to  his  own  disciples  he  explained 
everything"  {Mk.  IV,  33  f.).  There  are  some  thirty  of 
these  parable  stories  recorded  in  the  gospels.^  They 
1  There  are  at  least  forty,  if  we  count  such  "parable  germs" 


JESUS'  METHODS  OF  TEACHING  69 

hold  up  in  various  and  striking  lights  one  central  idea. 
In  a  dozen  of  them  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  directly  com-  f^y  cStT^^ 
pared  to  something  to  indicate  its  coming  expansibility  riou^s^nghts.  """' 
and  universality,  but  often  the  parable  deals  more  in-  ^°^ 
directly  with  the  membership  of  the  Kingdom,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  seed  of  the  sower  already  mentioned,  the  sons 
asked  to  labor  in  the  vineyard  (ML  XXI,  28  ff.);  or  the 
returning  prodigal  {Lk.  XV,  12  ff.).    They  often  occur  in 
pairs,  or  even  in  clusters,  in  order  to  teach  two  or  more  often  occur  in 
closely  related  aspects  of  the  same  general  truth,  or  sim- 
ply to  reenforce  each  other.    Thus  Mark  (IV,  26  ff.)  has 
in  juxtaposition  the  Kingdom  of  God  likened  to  the  nat- 
ural growth  of  a  seed  and  to  the  expansion  of  a  grain  of 
mustard  seed,  while  Matthew  (XIII,  24  ff.)  enlarges  the 
comparison  so  as  to  embrace  the  parables  of  The  Tares, 
The  Mustard  Seed,  and  The  Leaven.    Similarly,  we  have 
in  Luke  (XV,  4  ff.)  the  group  of  parables  of  The  Lost 
Sheep,  The  Lost  Coin,  and  The  Lost  Son. 

His  Use  of  the  Allegory  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  —  The 
Fourth  Gospel  introduces  a  variation  in  the  method  of 
Jesus'  teaching.   This  is  the  allegory,  which  differs  from  in  John,  jesus 

I  11*         11         i«i         •(••  1  ii»iT         uses  the  allegory, 

the  parable  m  absolutely  identifying  the  symbol  with  the  which  is  a  va- 
thing  symbolized  and  containing  a  more  extended  dis-  parabie, 
cussion.  Possibly  the  best  illustration  of  it  is  found  in 
the  lengthy  description  of  Jesus  both  as  the  Good  Shep- 
herd and  as  the  Door  of  the  Sheepfold  in  the  tenth  chap- 
as  the  "new  cloth  on  an  old  garment,"  the  "new  wine  in  old 
bottles,"  and  the  "candle  under  a  bushel,"  which  were  in  some 
instances  spoken  before  Jesus'  real  use  of  parable  stories  began. 
Of  the  forty,  thirty  are  recorded  in  one  gospel  only,  three  in  two 
gospels,  and  seven  in  all  three  synoptics. 


70  "WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

ter  of  John.  In  this  occur  a  number  of  beautiful  and 
familiar  passages,  such  as:  "Whoever  does  not  go  into 
the  sheepfold  through  the  door,  but  climbs  up  at  some 
other  place,  that  man  is  a  thief  and  a  robber;  but  the  man 
who  goes  in  through  the  door  is  shepherd  to  the  sheep  .  .  . 
I  am  the  Door  for  the  sheep.  All  who  came  before  me 
were  thieves  and  robbers;  but  the  sheep  did  not  listen 
to  them.  .  .  .  The  thief  comes  only  to  steal,  to  kill,  and 
to  destroy;  I  have  come  that  they  may  have  Life,  and  may 
have  it  in  greater  fullness.  I  am  the  Good  Shepherd. 
The  Good  Shepherd  lays  down  his  life  for  the  sheep." 
The  allegorical  discussions  occur  only  in  John,  and  there 
is  some  doubt  as  to  whether  this  extended  form  of  teach- 
ing was  actually  employed  by  Jesus,  or  is  due  to  the 
peculiar  nature  of  a  comparatively  late  gospel  (seep.  21). 
It  may,  however,  have  occasionally  formed  part  of  Jesus' 
u^  ^Seaive""  method.  While  not  as  crisp  and  succinct  as  the  parable,  it 
^^^'  may  well  have  proved  effective  for  much  the  same  reasons. 

The  Accompaniment  of  Outward  Action. —  Jesus  often 
accompanied  his  teaching  with  a  demonstration  through 
outward  action.  In  fact,  this  may  be  considered  one 
form  of  his  method.  An  example  of  this  procedure  is 
seen  in  the  way  he  "took  a  httle  child  and  placed  it  in 
Jesus  often  em-  thc  middle  of  thc  disciplcs.''    Then,  "folding  it  in  his 

phasized    his  ^  ^  .... 

propHate  actioSl  ^^^is,''  hc  cmphasizcd  the  necessity  of  child  likeness  in 
those  who  would  be  members  of  his  Kingdom  (Mk.  IX, 
36  f.).  In  like  fashion,  an  object  lesson  in  humility  was 
given  his  disciples  by  washing  their  feet  (Jn.  XIII,  4  ff.). 
Such  illustrations  of  their  teaching  through  gestures  and 
external  acts  of  necessity  form  part  of  the  method  of  all 
successful  teaching. 


JESUS    METHODS   OF  TEACHING  7I 

Summary.  —  In  his  teaching  Jesus  was  informal,  and, 
like  all  great  teachers,  seemed  to  be  using  no  set  method. 
He  realized,  however,  the  need  of  raising  a  problem,  and 
he  often  utilized  a  perplexity  of  long  standing,  awakened 
a  query  himself,  or  seized  upon  some  hostile  inquiry. 
He  was  enabled  to  do  this  through  his  profound  knowl- 
edge of  human  nature,  as  witnessed  by  the  introductions 
to  various  sayings  of  his  in  the  gospels.  He  adapted  his 
stimulus  to  each  individual  and  employed  a  wide  range  of 
topics,  but  sometimes  had  to  defer  his  teaching,  because 
of  the  mental  or  moral  limitations  of  his  hearers.  Hence 
he  recognized  the  importance  of  the  principle  afterward 
called  "apperception"  by  Herbart.  He  especially  under- 
stood the  traditions  of  the  Jews,  who  composed  most  of 
his  hearers,  and  often  based  his  teachings  upon  the  He- 
brew Scriptures,  but  stressed  their  inner  meaning  and 
somewhat  modified  them.  In  this  respect  the  cautious 
legalism  of  the  scribes  was  in  marked  contrast  with  Jesus' 
spontaneity  and  intuition,  and  "he  taught  like  one  having 
authority."  Jesus  always  clothed  his  teachings  in  epi- 
grams and  aphorisms,  but  he  did  not  at  first  use  "par- 
ables," which  later  became  so  characteristic  of  him. 
While  parables  do  not  necessarily  relate  real  events,  they 
are  in  harmony  with  life,  and  are  calculated  to  attract 
attention  and  impress  the  memory.  This  method  of 
teaching  proved  most  successful.  There  are  some  thirty 
parables,  and  they  hold  up  one  central  idea  in  various 
lights,  and  often  occur  in  pairs  or  clusters.  John  records 
Jesus  as  using  the  allegory,  which  is  a  variant  of  the 
parable.  Jesus  also  emphasized  his  teachings  by  the 
method  of  external  acts. 


72  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 


SUPPLEMENTARY  READING 

Glover,  T.  R.    The  Jesus  of  History.    Chapters  III  and  IV. 

Hinsdale,  B.  A.  Jesus  as  a  Teacher.  Chapters  X-XVII,  and 
XX. 

Kent,  C.  F.  The  Social  Teachings  of  the  Prophets  and  Jesus. 
Chapter  XVII. 

Penniman,  Josiah  H.  A  Book  about  the  English  Bible,  Chap- 
ter XII. 

Rall,  H.  F.    New  Testament  History.    Chapter  IX. 

Rhees,  Rush.  The  Life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Part  II,  Chap- 
ters III  and  IV. 

Stevens,  G.  B.    The  Teaching  of  Jesus.    Chapters  III  and  IV. 

TrPSWORD,  H.  M.    Pedagogics  of  Jesus.    Part  II. 

Wayland,  J.  W.    Christ  as  a  Teacher, 


CHAPTER  IV 

JESUS '  IDEA  OF  GOD 

The  Concept  of  God  as  the  Test  of  a  Man's  Char- 
acter. —  The  teaching  of  Jesus  is  essentially  religious.  His 
conception  of  God  is  typical  of  the  entire  content  of  his 
instruction.  His  simple  but  lofty  vision  of  the  Divine 
and  of  the  "one  increasing  puipose  which  through  the 
ages  runs"  is  a  leading  feature  in  distinguishing  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  from  that  of  all  others. 

This  conception  reveals  to  us  his  own  nature,  for  a 
person's  character  can  be  known  from  that  of  the  God  The  character 

of   a   person    or 

he  worships.    While  Robert  G.  IngersoU  would  hardly  potion  appears 

■•■  °  •'      m  their  concep- 

be  taken  as  an  authority  on  theology,  he  cleverly  hints  ''°°  °^  ^°^- 
at  this  truth  in  his  parody  upon  the  Scottish  bard,  — 
"An  honest  God's  the  noblest  work  of  man."  Similarly, 
the  ideals  of  any  nation  or  race  and  the  stage  of  its  ad- 
vancement appear  in  its  concept  of  God.  Realizing  that, 
more  than  haK  a  millennium  before  the  advent  of  Christ, 
the  Greek  philosopher,  Xenophanes,  satirically  de- 
clared: 

"  Men  ever  suppose  that  the  gods  have  a  body  and  voice 
and  wear  clothing  like  their  own.  .  .  .  Hence  the  gods 
of  the  Ethiopians  are  swarthy  and  snub-nosed,  and  the 
gods  of  the  Thracians  are  fair-haired  and  blue-eyed.  .  .  . 
Similarly,  Homer  and  Hesiod  attributed  to  the  gods  all 
that  is  disreputable  and  blameworthy  among  men  .  .  . 

73 


74  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

theft,  adultery,  deception,  and  other  lawless  deeds.  .  .  . 
So  if  cattle  and  horses  had  hands  with  which  to  depict 
and  produce  works  of  art,  they  would  describe  the  gods 
and  make  their  bodies  according  to  their  own  shape  .  .  . 
horses  like  horses,  and  cattle  like  cattle." 

Jesus'  Idea  of  God  as  Father.  —  Many  centuries,  then, 
must  have  elapsed  before  the  human  race,  in  its  efforts 
to  form  an  idea  of  the  Divine,  arose  from  animism, 
totemism,  ancestor  worship,  and  polytheism,  through  the 
intervening  stage  of  henotheism,  to  the  higher  reaches 
of  monotheism.^  Every  step  of  this  progress  is  well 
illustrated  in  the  long  history  of  the  Hebrews,  with  their 
development  from  the  tribal  and  anthropomorphic  gods  of 
pre-Mosaic  days  to  the  monistic,  spiritual,  and  ubiqui- 
tous concepts  of  Jahweh  formed  by  the  prophets.  And 
Jesus  added  to  all  the  higher  attributes  of  the  godhead  —  imiversality, 

the    Jewish    de-  o  ,  ,       ,     ,  i       ii 

lonc^rli  old  inajesty,   wisdom,  power  —  that  had  been  gradually 
as  Father.  evolvcd  in  this  coursc  of  Jewish  religious  development, 

seem  to  have  been  assumed  as  part  of  his  spiritual  heri- 
tage by  Jesus.  In  addition  to  these,  however,  he  pro- 
duced the  greatest  transformation  in  the  concept  of  the 
Deity  by  emphasizing  his  close  relationship  to  men  as 
their  "father."  The  Old  Testament  had  occasionally 
referred  to  Jahweh  as  "father,"  but  this  relation  was 

^Even  to-day  many  well  meaning  and  presumably  intelligent 
people,  who  suppose  themselves  to  be  monotheists,  are  at  best 
groping  in  the  twilight  of  "henotheism."  They  hold  to  a  species 
of  modernized  pantheon,  recognizing  good  and  bad  angels,  per- 
sonal devils,  and  pluralistic  views  of  the  Trinity,  which  imply 
a  variety  of  demoted  deities  or  demigods,  and  they  have  never 
fully  emerged  into  the  daylight  of  monotheism. 


JESUS'  IDEA  OF  GOD  75 

generally  expressed  in  the  case  of  Israel  alone  {Ex,  IV, 
22;  Deut.  XIV,  i;  Eos.  XI,  i\Jer.  Ill,  4),  or  of  its  the- 
ocratic king  (II  Sam'l  VII,  14;  Ps.  LXXXIX,  26),  or 
important  magistrates  {Ps.  LXXXII,  6).  It  usually  im- 
plied a  special  mark  of  divine  favor  for  a  chosen  people 
or  persons.  Jesus,  on  the  other  hand,  seems  never  to 
have  thought  of  this  kinship  as  limited  to  any  race  or 
people,  but  he  extended  it  to  all  mankind,  and  made  it 
the  central  and  supreme  idea  of  his  teaching.  Without 
in  the  least  weakening  the  awe  and  reverence  that  had 
come  to  be  associated  with  Jahweh  as  Creator,  Protector, 
and  Ruler  by  this  suggestion  of  fatherhood,  the  idea 
of  God  was  shot  through  and  through  with  new 
meaning,  and  each  existing  epithet  or  title  of  dignity 
for  the  Deity,  such  as  ''Most  High"  {Mk.  V,  7), 
''Blessed"  {Mk.  XIV,  61),  or  Power"  {Mk.  XIV,  62), 
when  he  uttered  it,  took  on  an  increased  significance. 
Man's  reverence  for  God  and  his  dependence  upon  him 
existed  no  longer  because  he  was  the  "servant"  of  God, 
but  because  he  was  his  child.  Jesus  described  God  as 
"father,"  because  this  term  seemed  best  to  indicate  the 
intimacy  of  relationship  as  companion  or  friend. 

And  it  can  readily  be  seen  how  different  is  this  con-  ll^^^J^^^^^"" 
ception  of  fatherhood  from  the  idea  of  God  as  a  law-  f^^^f^J'S^^^ 
giver  that  was  current  at  the  time  with  the  Pharisees  lawgiver. 
and  others.    From  Jesus'  point  of  view,  righteousness 
consisted  not  in  obedience  to  a  fixed  set  of  laws  or  a 
definite  ceremonial  handed  down  from  ancient  days,  but 
in  loyalty  to  a  beloved  father  and  sympathetic  compan- 
ionship with  him.     Men  are  the  children  of  God,  not 
because  he  is  their  Creator  and  Ruler,  but  because  they 


76  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

are  related  to  him  by  bonds  of  sympathy  and  dependence. 
Friendship  with  God,  Jesus  taught,  is  not  obtained  by 
the  study  of  ritual  or  devotion  to  Temple  worship,  but 
by  working  to  accomplish  the  divine  purpose  in  the 
world  and  in  the  development  of  the  race. 

The  Attributes  of  Fatherhood.  —  What,  then,  are  the 
moral  attributes  that  Jesus  associates  with  God  as  Father 
and  that  may  be  emulated  by  mankind  as  his  sons? 
Foremost  among  the  characteristics  of  a  wise  and  loving 
father,  constantly  attributed  to  God  by  Jesus,  is  that 
Protecting  care,  of  protccting  carc.   Any  ouc  who  has  kjiowQ  the  aff cctlou- 

as  the  character-  r  a  ^ 

hSi  °^  ^^^^^^'  ^^^  protection  of  a  father,  or  who  has  been  stirred  by  the 
emotional  promptings  of  paternal  anxiety  and  vigilance, 
can  imderstand  the  significance  of  this  characterization. 
Matthew  repeatedly  cites  the  Father's  solicitude  as  the 
sure  ground  for  a  belief  in  the  divine  Providence,  and 
makes  it  a  leading  thought  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
Continual  begging  from  the  Father  is  foolish,  he  holds, 
*^for  God,  your  Father,  knows  what  you  need  before 
you  ask  him"  (VI,  8).  Likewise  he  says:  "Do  not  then 
ask  anxiously  'What  can  we  get  to  eat? '  or  'What  can 
we  get  to  drink?'  or  'What  can  we  get  to  wear?'  All 
these  are  the  things  for  which  the  nations  are  seeking, 
and  your  heavenly  Father  knows  that  you  need  them 
all"  (VI,  31  f.).  Another  admonition  of  Jesus  to  the 
same  effect  was  given  earlier  in  the  chapter  (VI,  25  f.), 
together  with  the  familiar  proof  of  God's  thoughtful  pro- 
vision for  mankind:  "Look  at  the  wild  birds  .  .  .  they 
neither  sow,  nor  reap,  nor  gather  into  bams;  and  yet 
your  heavenly  Father  feeds  them.  .  .  .  Study  the  wild 
lilies  and  how  they  grow.    They  neither  toil  nor  spin; 


JESUS'  IDEA  OF  GOD  77 

yet  I  tell  you  that  even  Solomon  in  all  his  splendor  was 
not  robed  like  one  of  these."  The  comparison  of  God's 
evident  care  for  the  birds  is  even  more  effectively  given 
later  (X,  29  ff.)  in  the  rhetorical  question:  "Are  not  two 
sparrows  sold  for  a  halfpenny?  Yet  not  one  of  them 
will  fall  to  the  ground  without  your  Father's  knowledge. 
While,  as  for  you,  the  very  hairs  of  your  head  are  all 
numbered.  Do  not,  therefore,  be  afraid;  you  are  of  more 
value  than  many  sparrows."  Luke  (XII,  22  ff.)  has 
absorbed  the  Sayings  of  Jesus  (see  pp.  9  f .)  in  much  the 
same  form,  although  the  illustrative  birds  are  ravens, 
not  sparrows,  when  they  are  declared  neither  to  sow  nor 
reap  (XII,  24),  and  the  selling  price  becomes  slightly 
more  of  a  bargain  in  an  earlier  passage,  where  sparrows 
are  mentioned  (XII,  6). 

But  these  evidences  of  God's  paternal  regard  for  our 
physical  comfort  are  cited  by  Matthew  simply  as  argu- 
ment for  the  preeminent  value  of  spiritual  sustenance, 
and  as  a  caution  against  undue  worry  in  material  matters, 
which  are  of  so  much  less  importance,  for  he  continues: 
"But  first  seek  his  Kingdom  and  the  righteousness  he 
requires,  and  then  all  these  things  shall  be  added  for 
you.  Therefore  do  not  be  anxious  about  to-morrow,  for 
to-morrow  will  bring  its  own  anxieties.  Every  day  has 
trouble  enough  of  its  own"  (VI,  33  ff.).  This  advice  is 
not  intended  in  any  way  to  encourage  heedlessness, 
lethargy,  or  fatalism.    His  Father's  interest  in  his  wel-  but  not  intended 

/-^•^  to     encourage 

fare  furnishes  a  reason  to  no  man  why  he  should  fail  f^^^^isS"^"^   °' 
to  use  the  ordinary  means  of  making  a  livelihood,  or  take 
the  precautions  necessary  to  insure  his  personal  safety. 
That  the  Synoptists  (see  p.  9)  did  not  hold  this  to  be 


78  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

the  meaning  of  Jesus,  is  shown  by  their  account  of  his 
resistance  to  the  temptation  to  rely  upon  his  Father  to 
make  bread  from  the  stones,  or  to  save  him  from  death, 
if  he  were  to  throw  himself  from  the  pinnacle  of  the 
Temple  {ML  IV,  i  ff.;  Mk,  I,  12  ff.;  Lh  IV,  i  ff.)- 
Pity  and  for-         Other  patent  attributes  of  the  divine  fatherhood  are 

giveness,  as  char-  *^ 

fm^%hM  Pi^y  ^^^  forgiveness.  These  qualities  follow  almost  as 
hL  chlfdrS  ^^  a  corollary  from  the  proposition  of  watchful  care.  Even 
the  Old  Testament  {Ps.  CIII,  13)  distinguishes  pity 
as  an  attribute  of  paternity  in  the  expression:  ^'Like 
as  a  father  pitieth  his  children,  so  Jehovah  pitieth 
them  that  fear  him."  And  Jesus  throughout  the  syn- 
optic gospels  not  only  stresses  these  characteristics  of 
the  Father,  but  insists  that  they  become  an  example 
for  all  his  children.  In  Luke  (VI,  36)  it  is  taught: 
*' Learn  to  be  merciful  —  even  as  your  Father  is  merci- 
ful." So  the  disciples  are  to  pardon,  as  well  as  to  be 
pardoned.  The  model  prayer  suggests  the  petition: 
"Forgive  us  our  debts,  as  we  have  also  forgiven  our 
debtors"  {Mt.  VI,  12,  cf.  Lk.  XI,  4).  And  as  an  ex- 
planation, Jesus  adds:  "For  if  ye  forgive  others  their 
offenses,  your  heavenly  Father  will  forgive  you  also; 
but  if  you  do  not  forgive  others  their  offenses,  not  even 
your  Father  will  forgive  your  offenses"  {ML  VI,  14  f.). 
Likewise  Jesus  insists  upon  forgiveness  as  antecedent 
to  prayer:  "Whenever  you  stand  up  to  pray,  forgive  any 
grievance  you  have  against  any  one,  that  your  Father 
who  is  in  Heaven  also  may  forgive  your  offenses"  {Mk, 
XI,  25).  And  he  even  declares  specifically:  "Therefore, 
when  presenting  your  gift  at  the  altar,  if  even  there 
you  remember  that  your  brother  has  some  grievance 


JESUS'  IDEA  OF  GOD  79 

against  you,  leave  your  gift  there,  before  the  altar,  go 
and  be  reconciled  to  your  brother  first,  then  come  and 
present  your  gift"  {ML  V,  23  f.).  And  he  makes  more 
explicit  the  principle  underlying  forgiveness  by  recount- 
ing Jesus'  parable  of  the  unmerciful  servant.  Here 
(ML  XVIII,  23  ff .)  the  servant,  who  had  been  forgiven 
a  large  debt  by  his  master,  was  most  ruthless  in  his 
treatment  of  a  fellow  servant,  who  vainly  besought 
patience  in  the  case  of  a  small  amount,  and  when  the 
master  heard  this,  he  '' handed  him  over  to  the  gaolers, 
until  he  should  pay  the  whole  of  his  debt.  So  also,  will 
my  heavenly  Father  do  to  you,  unless  each  one  of  you 
forgives  his  brother  from  his  heart."  This,  it  will  be 
recalled,  was  the  parable  used  as  an  illustrative  basis  for 
Jesus'  reply  to  Peter  that  he  should  forgive  not  ''seven 
times,  but  seventy  times  seven"  (ML  XVIII,  21  f.). 

Sonship  Attained  by  Adopting  the  Ethical  Attri- 
butes of  God.  —  But  it  may  still  be  asked,  did  Jesus 
mean  to  imply  that  God  was  to  be  regarded  as  the 
''father"  of  all  men?  Was  sonship  to  be  extended  to 
those  who  rejected  him  and  his  characteristics,  or  to 
be  limited  to  the  faithful?  Clearly  in  the  sense  of  cre- 
atorship  God  is  the  father  of  all  men,  and  Jesus  makes 
it  equally  apparent  that  they  are  all  made  in  his  spirit- 
ual image,  and  may,  if  they  will,  aspire  to  the  moral 
attributes  desired  by  him.  By  virtue  of  their  very 
humanity,  they  possess  an  ineradicable  likeness  to  God, 
and  with  the  spark  of  the  Divine  within,  they  are  ever 
capable  of  rising  to  the  greatest  nobility  in  the  way  of 
self-sacrifice  and  devotion.  Sonship  rests  in  their  own 
efforts.    All  men  possess  God's  characteristics  poten- 


8o  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

All  men  are      tiallv  and  hc  IS  at  least  ideally  the  Father  of  them  all. 

potentially    sons  "^ 

of  God,  Some  realize  the  ideal  very  imperfectly,  and  some  may 

even  by  their  own  will  repudiate  the  filial  relation,  but 
the  potentiality  to  some  extent  remains.  Even  the 
uniilial  conduct  of  the  Prodigal  Son  could  not  destroy 
the  paternal  relation  and  characteristics  {Lk.  XV,  21 
£f.).  And  throughout  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  it  is 
evident  that  God's  love  and  forgiveness  are  regarded 
as  universal,  and  that  the  door  is  never  closed  to  the 
wanderer.  Here  it  is  that  Jesus  maintains:  ''You,  then, 
must  become  perfect  {i.e.,  complete  and  not  partial  in 
love),  as  your  heavenly  Father  is  perfect"  {Ml.  V,  48). 

Yet  it  must  be  noted  that,  while  God  is  represented 
as  remaining  the  loving  Father  of  humanity,  ever  ready 
to  forgive,  sonship  is  held  to  consist  in  becoming  the 
moral  counterpart  of  God,  and  they  are  more  truly  the 
sons  of  God  who  live  the  Hfe  of  close  fellowship  with 
him.  Through  striving  after  noble  ends  and  con- 
sciously strengthening  their  determination  by  prayer, 
such  men  may  be  said  to  develop  a  more  intimate  and 
responsive  relationship  to  God.  They  become  molded 
into  a  new  character  and  obtain  a  more  complete  like- 
ness through  personal  contact.  The  mutual  love  and 
the  similarity  of  nature  thus  engendered  render  the 
human  analogy  taken  from  fatherhood  more  appropri- 
ate in  their  case.  They  are,  so  to  speak,  more  intensively 
the  sons  of  God. 

Thus,  while  God's  love  and  forgiveness  for  the  entire 
race  never  cease,  and  Jesus  maintains  that  the  divine 

but  there  are  . 

Khek^reaiiza-  Paternity  exists  for  all,  there  are  widely  differing  degrees 
tion  of  sonship.    q£  ^^  j^y^  ^^^  obedieuce,  and  some  men  may  be  con- 


JESUS*  IDEA  OF  GOD  8l 

sidered  more  nearly  members  of  a  divine  family.  "To 
all  who  did  receive  him,"  declares  John  (I,  12),  "he 
gave  power  to  become  children  of  God."  Hence  Jesus, 
while  never  denying  the  universaHty  of  Fatherhood, 
reserves  the  dignity  of  sonship  for  those  who  have 
entered  the  kingdom,  and  have,  in  John's  (III,  3)  phrase- 
ology, been  "reborn."  So  real  and  important  is  this 
metaphorical  and  spiritual  kinship  that  at  times  he 
holds  that  it  must  even  supersede  that  of  one's  own 
blood  and  family  relations.  He  even  bade  one  of  the 
disciples  who  wished  first  to  bury  his  father:  "Follow 
me  and  leave  the  dead  to  bury  their  dead"  (Mt.  VHI, 
22;  Mk.  IX,  60).  In  his  own  case,  too,  when  told  that 
his  mother  and  brethren  were  waiting  to  speak  to  him, 
Jesus  declined  to  go,  and,  "stretching  out  his  hand 
toward  his  disciples,  he  said:  'Here  are  my  mother  and 
my  brothers '"  {ML  XII,  49  f-  Cf,  Mk.  Ill,  34  ff.;  Lk. 
VIII,  20  f.). 

This  last  passage  seems  also  to  indicate  the  main 
ground  upon  which  Jesus  held  himself  to  be  the  son  of 
God,  —  ethical  like-mindedness.  That  view  he  proceeds  ll^ll^^lf  i,e! 
to  substantiate  by  saying:  "For  any  one  who  does  the  [lenes^/— '^''^^ 
will  of  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven  is  my  brother  and 
sister  and  mother."  That  is  to  say,  the  test  of  sonship 
or  membership  in  the  divine  family  is  found  in  the  en- 
deavor to  follow  the  requirements  of  God.  And  Jesus 
makes  his  own  claim  to  sonship  analogous  with  that  of 
all  faithful  followers  of  God.    This  is  quite  a  different  a,  very  different 

^  view   from   that 

interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  "the  Son  of  God"  from  jyj«  uHh. 
that  rather  official  and  material  use  of  the  term  which 
bad  grown  up  in  connection  with  some  of  the  Jewish 


82  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

views  of  the  expected  Messiah.  The  sonship  claimed 
by  Jesus  was,  however,  frequently  understood  in  that 
miraculous  and  primitive  sense.  Illustrations  of  this 
are  found  in  the  challenge  to  show  himseK  really  the  Son 
of  God  by  turning  stones  into  bread  or  by  casting  him- 
self from  the  pinnacle  of  the  Temple  {ML  IV,  3  ff.; 
Lk.  IV,  3  ff.)j  3-nd  in  the  taunting  request  to  demonstrate 
his  sonship  by  coming  down  from  the  cross  (Mt.  XXVII, 
40  ff.;  Lk.  XXIII,  35  ff.)-  A  similar  conventional  inter- 
pretation of  the  Messiahship  as  consisting  simply  in  the 
performance  of  wonders  is  found  in  the  well-known  in- 
cident: "Now  John  had  heard  in  prison  what  the  Christ 
was  doing,  and  he  sent  a  message  by  his  disciples  and 
asked  —  'Are  you  The  Coming  One,  or  are  we  to  look 
for  some  one  else?'"  (ML  XI,  2). 

The  Sonship  of  Jesus  Himself.  —  But  Jesus  often 
spoke  and  acted  about  his  sonship  as  if  it  were  something 
unique,  although  he  seems  not  to  have  adhered  to  any 
merely  material  view  of  this  relation.  Constantly  dur- 
ing his  ministry  he  indicated  his  certainty  that  he  held  a 
peculiar  relationship  to  God,  but  this  attitude  is  always 
susceptible  of  meaning  moral  kinship  and  sympathy. 
SipoUesiswM  According  to  Matthew  (XI,  27),  Jesus  declared:  "Every- 
unique,  thing  has  been  committed  to  me  by  my  Father;  nor 

does  any  one  fully  know  the  Son,  except  the  Father, 
or  fully  know  the  Father,  except  the  Son,  and  those  to 
whom  the  Son  may  choose  to  reveal  Him."  In  John 
this  ethical  similarity  is  even  more  emphasized,  for 
Jesus  maintained:  ''He  who  has  seen  me  has  seen  the 
Father.  .  .  .  Believe  me  when  I  say  that  I  am  in  union 
with  the  Father  and  the  Father  with  me"  (XIV,  9  ff.). 


physical; 


JESUS'  IDEA  OP  GOD  83 

Other  allusions,  while  more  subtle,  are  no  less  clear.  Un- 
doubtedly Jesus  himself  is  intended  to  be  understood  as 
the  "beloved  son"  sent  by  the  owner  of  the  vineyard  to 
represent  him  {ML  XXI,  37  ff.;  Mk,  XII,  6  E.^Lk.  XX, 
13  ff.)-  He  is  likewise  indicated  in  the  parable  of  the 
"king  who  made  a  marriage  feast  for  his  son,"  and  had 
such  poor  success  in  securing  the  guests  {ML  XXII,  2  £[.)• 

Thus  in  every  reference  the  sonship  seems  to  be  spirit-  f^-iftuX-n^ 
ual.  A  personal  identification  of  himself  with  God  is 
probably  not  implied  even  in  John's  description  of  the 
intimacy  of  the  relation  by  figurative  expressions  drawn 
from  the  physical  side  of  human  life,  such  as  "the  Only 
Son  sent  from  the  Father"  (I,  14  and  18.  CJ.  Ill,  16  and 
18).  In  his  interpretation  of  sonship  Jesus  transcends 
the  current  material  and  restricted  view.  He  never  makes 
this  his  prime  idea,  but  clearly  indicates  that  he  is  the 
son  of  God  because  he  reveals  the  Father  in  his  own  Hfe, 
and  because,  in  his  new  interpretation  of  the  ideals  of  God 
and  in  the  salvation  of  men  from  their  lower  selves,  he 
stands  alone. 

While  the  sonship  of  Jesus  is  analogous  to  that  of  faith- 
ful men  everywhere,  it  is  most  certainly  unique.  This 
was  the  sure,  though  humble,  conviction  of  Jesus.  While 
he  spoke  as  if  he  were  the  son  of  God  in  the  same  sense 
that  all  true  believers  were  his  children,  by  sympathetic  nLld^  b^  jS^ 
kinship,  he  never  considered  the  sonship  of  the  disciples 
on  a  par  with  his  own.  In  his  conversations  with  them 
he  regularly  refers  to  "your  Father"  or  to  "my  Father," 
but  never  to  "our  Father."  This  possessive  pronoun  is 
used,  of  course,  in  his  model  prayer,  but  the  petition  is 
there  suggested  to  the  disciples  for  their  own  use.   Thia 


with  humility. 


84  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

distinctive  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  son  of  God  par  ex- 
cellence is  confirmed  in  such  passages  as  the  baptism  of 
Jesus,  where  the  voice  from  the  heavens  declared:  "This 
is  my  Son,  the  Beloved,  in  whom  I  delight"  {Mt.  Ill,  17. 
Cf,  Mk,  I,  11;  Lk.  Ill,  22),  or  in  the  descriptions  of  the 
transfiguration,  where  a  similar  phenomenon  is  recorded 
(Mt.  XVII,  5;  LL  IX,  35).  Hence  Jesus  declared  that 
all  men  might,  by  faith  and  deeds,  become  the  children 
of  God  (Jn.  I,  12),  but  that  he  actually  was  the  son 
of  God.  He  taught  the  universal  fatherhood  of  God 
through  moral  kinship,  but  for  that  very  reason  the 
closeness  of  the  relation  was  in  his  own  case  absolutely 
unique. 

Jesus'  Idea  of  God  as  King.  —  Such  was  the  new  idea 
of  God  as  Father  taught  by  Jesus.    One  other  title  is  also 
implied  of  God  by  the  Great  Teacher  and  that  is  "king." 
Sfe"s\harGid"is  ^^^  teun  itsclf  is  seldom  used,  but  Jesus  constantly 
"king,"  refers  to  "the  Kingdom  of  God, "  and  thereby  might  seem 

to  indicate  a  group  of  people  under  the  sovereignty  of  a 
Supreme  Being.  This  characterization  of  God  appears 
at  the  beginning  of  Jesus'  teaching  and  remains  a  prime 
concept  throughout.  According  to  Mark  (I,  14),  as  soon 
as  Jesus  started  his  work  in  Galilee,  he  declared:  "The 
time  has  come,  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand." 
The  phrase  recurs  throughout  the  gospel  of  Mark  and  it  is 
used  at  every  turn  in  Luke.  Matthew  usually  employs 
an  alternative  expression,  "the  Kingdom  of  Heaven," 
to  indicate  the  same  idea.  But  the  synonymous  form  is 
probably  used  by  this  ecclesiastical  (see  p.  16)  evangelist, 
simply  to  avoid,  in  keeping  with  the  Jewish  custom,  the 
direct  use  of  the  name  of  the  Deity,  wherever  possible. 


JESUS'  IDEA  OF  GOD  8$ 

And  even  in  Matthew  "the  Kingdom  of  God"  occurs 
three  times  (XII,  28;  XXI,  31  and  43). 

This  idea  of  kingship,  however,  when  used  by  Jesus,  ^^''^.g^^^^n,  ^'\'^ 
may  be  regarded  as  simply  another  side  to  fatherhood.  sid?%¥'^aThi?l 
His  use  of  the  term  seems  to  emphasize  the  authority  of  ^°°'^- 
the  Father,  and  to  recognize  more  expressly  the  necessity 
for  living  in  accordance  with  his  truth  and  law,  but  the 
"Kingdom'^  is,  after  all,  simply  the  idea  of  a  family 
expanded  and  made  more  comprehensive.  The  king  is 
the  father  and  the  subjects  are  brothers.  In  fact,  the 
filial  relation  to  the  Father  and  citizenship  in  the  King- 
dom are  sometimes  used  interchangeably.  "Blessed  {i.e. 
happy)  are  the  peacemakers,"  says  Jesus  in  Matthew 
(V,  9),  "for  they  shall  be  called  the  Sons  of  God,"  whereas 
he  holds  that  "the  poor  in  spirit"  (V,  3)  and  "those  who 
have  been  persecuted  in  the  cause  of  righteousness" 
(V,  10)  should  be  happy,  "for  theirs  is  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven."  So  the  first  petition  in  the  model  prayer  reads: 
"Our  Father  who  art  in  Heaven,  hallowed  be  thy  name," 
while  the  second  is  "Thy  kingdom  come,  thy  will  be  done" 
{ML  VI,  9  f.  Cf.  Lk.  XI,  2).  Similarly,  Jesus  insists  upon 
an  outstanding  characteristic  of  childhood,  —  implicit 
trust  in  the  Father,  as  the  only  means  of  entering  the 
Kmgdom  {ML  XVIII,  3;  ML  X,  15).  In  many  other 
ways  the  terms  of  "father"  and  "king"  are  equated, 
and  the  two  ideals  blend  throughout  the  synoptic  gospels. 
Possibly  citizenship  in  the  heavenly  poUty  may  be  con- 
sidered to  stress  the  social  side  of  the  situation,  just  as 
membership  in  the  divine  family  makes  reference  to  the 
individual.  Jesus  was  striving  not  merely  for  love  and 
loyalty  to  a  divine  Father,  but  for  a  social  order  which 


96  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

should  realize  the  divine  purpose.  Through  the  family 
of  faithful  sons  were  to  be  trained  efficient  spiritual 
citizens,  and  entrance  into  a  transformed  society  was  to 
be  the  goal  and  reward  of  the  individual's  efforts.  The 
concept  of  devoted  family  relations  extended  to  society 
at  large  was  the  perfected  social  ideal  of  Jesus. 

The  Ideal  of  a  Material  Kingdom  Enlarged.  —  Much 
more  than  in  the  case  of  the  concept  of  fatherhood  (see 
p.  74),  the  *'king"  idea  had  been  somewhat  developed 
in  the  Old  Testament.  Jesus  in  a  way  but  gave  a  new 
meaning  or  *' fulfillment"  (see  p.  63)  to  a  well-established 
Jewish  tradition.  The  Hebrews  always  regarded  their 
state  as  a  theocracy  —  a  monarchy  ruled  by  Jahweh. 
Their  kings  and  magistrates  were  held  to  be  his  vice- 
gerents upon  earth,  even  to  the  extent,  as  we  have  seen 
(p.  75),  of  calling  them  "the  sons  of  God."  During  the 
various  periods  of  domination  and  oppression  that  Judaea 
had  suffered  under  Babylon,  Persia,  Alexander,  the 
Ptolemies,  Syria,  and  Rome,  this  idea  was  strengthened 
dSinJ^ kingdom  ^^^  elaborated.  The  conception  of  a  divine  kingdom 
by'^tbftklS'ol  had,  by  the  time  of  Jesus,  developed  into  a  belief  in  the 
^^'^'  establishment  of  a  great  empire,  which  was  destined  to 

cast  off  the  foreign  yoke  and  dominate  the  world.  This 
enlarged  idea  is  often  portrayed,  especially  in  the  apoc- 
alyptic Hterature  of  the  Old  Testament,  as,  for  example, 
the  passage  from  Daniel  (II,  44) :  "  And  in  the  days  of 
those  kings  shall  the  God  of  heaven  set  up  a  kingdom 
which  shall  never  be  destroyed,  nor  shall  the  sovereignty 
thereof  be  left  to  another  people;  but  it  shall  break  in 
pieces  and  consume  all  these  kingdoms,  and  it  shall  stand 
forever."    This  Messianic  view  of  the  Kingdom,  as  we 


JESUS'  IDEA  OF  GOD  87 

shall  see  (pp.  142  f.),  became  more  pronounced  in  Enoch, 
Baruch,  and  various  other  recently  discovered  apoca- 
lyptic books.  There  was  a  general  belief  that  a  Messiah 
would  suddenly  arise  amid  signs  and  wonders.  He  would 
quickly  conquer  the  world  and  establish  the  divine 
empire,  with  Jerusalem  as  its  capital. 

This  ideal  of  a  Messianic  kmgdom  was  adapted  by  and  JpirftuaiSd 
Jesus,  and  given  a  wider  and  more  spiritual  significance.  "' 
His  conception  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  crystallized  all 
the  inherited  loyalty  and  devotion  of  the  Jewish  race,  but 
he  no  longer  limited  the  Kingdom  to  Judaea.  He  extended 
the  possibility  of  citizenship  therein  to  all  mankind,  and 
made  the  test  for  entrance  not  race,  wealth,  power,  or 
social  standing,  but  the  possession  of  certain  virtues  and 
moral  qualities.  While  Jesus  never  defines  this  spiritual 
Kingdom,  in  the  varied  language  of  the  Beatitudes 
(ML  V,  3-1 1)  he  catalogues  those  whose  characteristics 
will  enable  them  to  attain  membership  in  it;  to  wit,  the 
humble,  penitent,  gentle,  virtuous,  compassionate,  pure- 
minded,  peacemakers,  and  martyrs.  Elsewhere  {Ml. 
XVin,  3  £f.;  Mk.  X,  15)  he  cites  submissiveness  and 
childlike  trust  as  qualities  for  citizenship  in  the  Kingdom. 
Again  (ML  XX,  21  fif.)  he  declares  service  to  be  the  real 
test  for  good  standing  there.  According  to  John's  mys- 
tical statement  (III,  3),  Jesus  maintained  that  the 
achievement  of  these  qualities  entails  a  new  birth.  In 
other  words,  allowing  for  the  pedagogical  repetition  in 
the  Beatitudes,  the  Great  Teacher  holds  that  citizenship 
in  the  Elingdom  of  God  requires  that  one  develop  humil- 
ity, purity,  and  service  as  the  texture  of  his  character. 

Such  a  spiritual  society  was  somewhat  different  from 


88  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

the  earthly  kingdom  that  many  of  the  Jewish  apocalyptic 
writers  had  described.  It  was  not  material  and  objective, 
with  a  fixed  organization  and  administration,  but  was 
spiritual  and  a  product  of  congenial  intellects,  emotions, 
and  wills.  Like  Boston,  as  the  wag  has  expressed  it, 
it  was  not  a  place,  but  a  state  of  mind.  The  great  human- 
ist, Erasmus,  declared,  when  Italy  was  the  center  of 
culture:  "To  me  any  one  who  is  truly  learned  is  an 
Italian,  even  if  born  among  savages.'^  So  anyone  who 
shared  the  thoughts  and  purposes  of  God  in  an  attitude 
of  love  and  loyalty  to  him  was  to  become  a  citizen  of  his 
Kingdom,  wherever  his  birthplace  might  have  been.  In 
a  union  of  this  sort  distance  was  no  obstacle,  and  the 
members  might  be  widely  separated.  ''  For  where  two 
or  three  have  come  together  in  my  Name,  I  am  present 
with  them"  (ML  XVIII,  20).  Since  the  relationship  is  a 
spiritual  one,  it  is  possible  for  all  to  attain  it,  and  it  could 
well  be  declared  that  "many  will  come  from  East  and 
West,  and  take  their  places  beside  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  "  (ML  VIII,  11). 
Development  of  the  Kingdom.  —  This  spiritual  king- 
Kfngdom' was^to  ^^^'  Jcsus  sccms  to  havc  held,  was  destiued  constantly 
expand,  ^^  to  grow  and  expand  in  power  and  repute.  Hence  in 
Matthew  (XIII,  31  ff.)  it  is  likened  to  the  mustard  seed 
developing  into  a  large  plant,  or  to  the  yeast  spreading 
in  the  meal,  while  Mark  (IV,  26  ff .)  reports  the  metaphor 
of  a  seed  of  growing  grain,  which  becomes  "first  the 
blade,  then  the  ear,  and  then  the  full  grain  in  the  ear.^* 
This  process  of  realizing  the  divine  ideals,  too,  would 
seem  to  answer  the  question  that  has  sometimes  been 
raised  as  to  whether  Jesus  referred,  by  the  "Kingdom 


JESUS'  IDEA  OF  GOD  Sg 

of  God"  and  the  **  Kingdom  of  Heaven,"  to  a  present 
reality  or  to  a  future  state  of  blessedness.  As  the  chapter 
on  The  Teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  the  Future  (VII) 
will  indicate  in  detail,  apparently  he  meant  both.  While 
the  ideals  formulated  could  only  be  approximated,  he 
regarded  them  as  somewhat  attainable  upon  earth  and 
did  not  look  forward  to  a  heavenly  Kingdom  only.  Said 
Jesus,  when  questioned  by  the  Pharisees :  ' '  The  Kingdom  S  be'begunrow 
of  God  does  not  come  in  a  way  that  admits  of  observa-  w?ras?n^thf 
tion,  nor  will  people  say  'Look,  here  it  is!'  or  'There  it  ^"'"'"^' 
is! ';  for  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  in  your  midst"  (Lk.  XVII, 
2i).  The  earthly  Kingdom  was  to  be  but  anticipatory 
of  the  heavenly.  Hence  it  is  not  merely  in  the  future 
that  men  are  to  become  brothers,  but  in  the  present  as 
weU.  ''You  have  only  one  Teacher,"  Jesus  said,  "and 
you  yourselves  are  all  brothers"  {ML  XXIII,  8).  The 
social  order  in  which  the  relation  of  men  to  God  is  that  of 
sons  and  to  each  other  of  neighbors  and  brothers  is  to 
be  begun  here  and  now  (Lk.  X,  25-37).  The  hopes  of 
the  Jewish  masses  for  a  present  kingdom  and  the  es- 
chatological  vision  of  the  later  Jewish  writers  of  a  future 
divine  Israelitish  state,  with  a  Messiah  at  the  head  as 
God's  vicegerent,  and  all  other  peoples  as  subjects,  both 
entered  into  the  new  interpretation  of  Jesus.  He  took 
these  expectations  of  a  divinely  reconstituted  society, 
and  purified  the  ideas  of  both  present  and  future  con- 
tained in  them.  He  also  harmonized  and  universalized 
them  in  his  conception  of  a  spiritual  kingdom  progres- 
sively achieved. 

Difficulties  in  Comprehending  Jesus'  Idea  of  the  Eling- 
dom.  —  But  the  concept  of  a  kingdom  of  this  sort — 


90  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

Spiritual,  universal,  widely  separated,  and  gradual  —  was 
ScouKot  difficult  for  the  people  of  the  times  to  grasp.  While  it 
b5  theTeo^     "^^s  derived  from  a  well-established  hope  and  expectation. 


II 


the  timM, 


the  adaptation  was  so  radical  as  to  prove  confusing  and 
misleading  to  those  looking  for  a  visible  and  material 
kingdom.  Jesus  himself  soon  recognized  that  this  ex- 
treme departure  from  the  original  idea  of  a  political 
kingdom  or  theocratic  state  was  so  great  that  one  could 
not  without  disaster,  as  he  caressed  it,  sew  the  new 
fabric  upon  the  old  garment  or  put  the  new  wine  into 
the  old  containers  (Mk.  II,  21  f.).  So  well-rooted  and 
persistent,  however,  was  the  idea  of  an  earthly  empire 
that  even  Jesus  found  the  temptation  to  become  a  new 
Caesar  forced  upon  him.  But  he  steadfastly  refused  to 
attempt  any  miraculous  exhibition  of  his  imperial  vice- 
gerency  by  turning  stones  into  bread  or  hurling  himself 
from  the  top  of  a  great  building,  saying  in  the  one  case: 
"Scripture  says  —  'It  is  not  on  bread  alone  that  man 
is  to  live ' "  {Lk.  IV,  4),  and  in  the  other: "  It  is  said  — 
'Thou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy  God"'  (Lk.  IV,  12). 
And  when,  thirdly,  he  was  tempted  to  assume  dominion 
over  "all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,"  he  recalled  the 
words:  "Scripture  says  —  'Thou  shalt  do  homage  to  the 
Lord  thy  God,  and  worship  him  only'"  (Lk.  IV,  8). 
He  often  had  to  decline  to  perform  any  wonders  as  a 
sign  of  his  Messiahship,  and  declared  to  the  expectant 
multitude  on  one  occasion:  "This  generation  is  asking 
a  sign,  but  no  sign  shall  be  given  to  it,  except  the  sign 
of  Jonah  ...  for  they  repented  at  Jonah's  proclama- 
tion; and  here  is  more  than  a  Jonah"  (Lk.  XI,  30  ff.)- 
And,  after  the  wonderful  feeding  of  the  multitude,  it  is 


JESUS'  IDEA  OF  GOD  Ql 

related:  "When  the  people  saw  the  signs  which  Jesus 
gave,  they  said:  "This  is  certainly  'the  Prophet  who  was 
to  come'  into  the  world.  But  Jesus,  having  discovered 
that  they  were  intending  to  come  and  carry  him  off  to 
make  him  king,  retired  again  up  the  hill  quite  alone" 
{Jn.  VI,  14  f.).  Repeatedly  those  who  witnessed  his 
remarkable  works  and  teaching,  mindful  of  the  tradi- 
tional Kingdom  of  God  and  the  promised  Messiah  or 
vicegerent,  endeavored  without  success  to  drag  him  into 
politics  and  seat  him  upon  a  visible  throne.  On  the 
other  hand,  because  he  maintained,  when  challenged, 
that  he  was  a  king,  his  hearers,  who  failed  to  take  this 
in  the  spiritual  sense,  had  him  put  to  death  {Lk.  XXIII, 
2  ff.).  They  were  never  able  to  understand  his  declara- 
tion: "My  kingly  power  is  not  due  to  this  world"  {Jn. 
XVIII,  36). 

The  disciples  of  Jesus  themselves,  with  all  the  oppor-  5?^2[e°  ^^  ^""^ 
tunities  they  had  to  listen  to  his  teachings,  failed  to 
appreciate  his  mission.  They  seemed  to  have  been 
frankly  disappointed  wheii,  as  God's  representative,  he 
claimed  no  earthly  throne.  We  read  {Mt.  XVIII,  i  ff.) 
how  they  came  to  the  Master  and  naively  asked:  "Who 
is  really  the  greatest  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven?  "  When 
in  answer  Jesus  called  a  little  child  to  him,  and  then  said: 
"Any  one  who  will  humble  himself  like  this  child,  that 
man  shall  be  the  greatest  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven," 
they  must  have  been  perplexed  and  probably  grieved  by 
the  interpretation.  When  later  the  mother  ^  of  James 
and  John  came  with  her  sons  and  actually  went  so  far 

iln  Mark  (X,  35  ff.)  the  two  disciples  themselves  are  repre- 
sented as  preferring  the  request. 


92  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

as  to  make  the  request:  "I  want  you  to  say  that  in  your 
Kingdom  these  two  sons  of  mine  may  sit,  one  on  your 
right,  and  the  other  on  your  left"  {ML  XX,  21  ff.), 
Jesus  replied:  "You  shall  indeed  drink  my  cup,  but  as 
to  a  seat  at  my  right  and  at  my  left  —  that  is  not  mine 
to  give,  but  it  is  for  those  for  whom  it  has  been  prepared 
by  my  Father."  And  to  the  other  ten  disciples,  who, 
upon  hearing  the  request,  "were  very  indignant  about 
the  two  brothers,"  he  explained:  "Whosoever  would  be 
great  among  you  shall  be  your  minister;  and  whoever 
wants  to  become  great  among  you  must  be  your  servant; 
just  as  the  Son  of  Man  came,  not  to  be  served,  but  to 
serve,  and  to  give  his  life  as  a  ransom  for  many." 

But  still  the  spiritual  Kingdom  seems  to  have  re- 
mained but  indifferently  comprehended  by  these  men 
who  were  nearest  to  Jesus.  Upon  his  triumphal  entry 
into  Jerusalem,  just  before  the  crucifixion,  the  disciples 
were  probably  among  those  who  joined  in  the  shout: 
"Blessed  is  the  coming  Kingdom  of  our  father  David!" 
{Mk.  XI,  10).  At  any  rate  it  is  recorded  {Acts  I,  6) 
that  after  the  resurrection  they  even  yet  failed  to  get 
the  purport  of  his  interpretation  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
and  inquired  impatiently:  "Master,  is  this  the  time 
when  you  intend  to  reestablish  the  Kingdom  of  Israel?  " 

Jesus'  Idea  of  God  a  "  Fulfillment."  —  Thus  the  de- 
scription of  God's  character,  both  as  "father"  and  as 
"king,"  was  adapted  by  Jesus  from  Jewish  traditions, 
but,  as  compared  with  many  of  these,  so  humanized  and 
spiritualized  as  to  become  largely  original  with  him. 
While  it  was  difficult  for  the  people  of  the  times,  and 
even  his  professed  followers,  fully  to  comprehend  the 


JESUS'  IDEA  OF  GOD  93 

sense  in  which  he  used  these  terms,  they  must  have 

felt  that  it  was  a  genuine  ^'fulfilhnent"  and  became  a  Yet  aii  must 

have     realized 

bond  between  the  new  and  the  old.     The  complete  the  "fuimi- 

^  ment." 

significance  and  more  extensive  acceptance  have  been 
gradually  growing  with  the  progress  of  time.  An  ap- 
preciation of  tbe  Father  in  Heaven  and  the  furtherance 
of  his  Kingdom  have  been  increasing  ever  since  the 
prayer  was  offered  as  a  model. 

Summary. — Jesus'  idea  of  God  reveals  his  own  nature. 
To  the  wisdom,  majesty,  and  power  conceived  by  the 
Jewish  traditions,  he  added  the  idea  of  fatherhood,  with 
the  attributes  of  protecting  care,  pity,  and  forgiveness. 
Men  become  the  children  of  God  in  so  far  as  they  adopt 
these  qualities,  and  the  sonship  of  Jesus,  while  unique, 
is  founded  upon  the  revelation  of  God  in  bis  own  life. 
The  idea  of  kingship  was  also  attributed  to  God  by 
Jesus,  but  this  seems  simply  to  expand  the  idea  of  a 
divine  family  and  to  stress  its  social  side.  This  con- 
ception also  had  been  developed  in  Hebrew  history,  but 
Jesus  represented  it  as  a  spiritual,  rather  than  a  material, 
kingdom,  and  made  humility,  purity,  and  service  the 
test  of  membership.  The  realization  of  these  ideals  was 
to  be  gradual,  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  a  present 
reality,  as  well  as  a  future  state.  The  people  of  the 
times,  and  even  the  disciples,  found  it  difficult  to 
grasp  this  departure  from  the  concept  of  a  political 
kingdom. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  READING 

Bos  WORTH,  E.  I.    Studies  in  the  Teaching  of  Jesus.    Part  I. 
Glover,  T.  R.    The  Jesus  of  History.    Chapter  V. 


94  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

HiLLis,  N.  D.  The  Influence  of  Christ  in  Modern  Life.  Chap- 
ters VII  and  VIII. 

Mathews,  Shailer.    Message  of  Jesus  to  Modern  Life,    Study  I. 

Mathews,  S.  Social  and  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus.  Studies  II, 
III,  and  VI. 

MOFFATT,  James.     The  Theology  of  the  Gospels.    Chapter  III. 

Rall,  H.  F.    New  Testament  History.    Chapters  X-XV. 

ScoTT,  E.  F.     The  Kingdom  and  the  Messiah.    Chapters  I  and  II. 

Stevens,  G.  B.    The  Teaching  of  Jesus.    Chapters  I,  V,  and  VI. 


CHAPTER  V 

JESUS'  IDEA  OF  MAN 

The  Brotherhood  of  Man  and  the  Divine  Commun- 
ity.—  After  the  elaboration  of  Jesus'  conception  of  God  in 
the  last  chapter,  further  comment  regarding  his  view  of 
man  might  seem  to  be  superfluous.  The  one  idea  is  so 
obviously  the  correlate  of  the  other.  And  yet  it  may 
afford  a  more  comprehensive  view  and  bring  out  certain 
implications,  to  state  the  attitude  of  Jesus  from  the 
obverse  side.  All  men  are  potentially  the  sons  of  God,  Jf^God!*are^°°^ 
but  to  claim  their  birthright  they  should  strive  after  oSr''' '° '"'^ 
the  divine  characteristics  or  attributes  required  of  them. 
But,  through  his  deep-lying  social  instincts,  man  has  a 
capacity  and  desire  for  a  union  with  his  fellows,  as  well 
as  a  purely  individualistic  side.  If  it  is  true  that  all  may 
become  the  children  of  God,  it  follows  that  they  may  be 
brothers  to  each  other.  If  they  once  become  fully  con- 
scious of  their  common  sonship,  they  will  naturally  be 
drawn  into  relations  of  sympathy  and  brotherly  love. 
So  important  does  Jesus  deem  this  fraternal  feeling  and 
action  to  be  that  he  holds  that  any  obstruction  to  its 
origin  and  function  should  be  ruthlessly  removed,  even 
if  the  punctuality  of  a  formal  religious  observance  is 
thereby  violated.  That  is  the  meaning  of  the  well-known 
passage: 

"Therefore,  when  presenting  your  gift  at  the  altar,  if 

95 


96 


WHAT  DID  JESXTS  TEACH? 


On  the  social 
side,   a   divine 
community,    or 
"  Kingdom    of 
God,"  will  be 
established. 


even  there  you  remember  that  your  brother  has  some 
grievance  against  you,  leave  your  gift  there,  before  the 
altar,  go  and  be  reconciled  to  your  brother  first,  then  come 
and  present  your  gift"  (ML  V,  23  f.). 

A  sense  of  this  common  filial  relationship  and  frater- 
nity, Jesus  clearly  held,  should  animate  a  man's  dealings 
even  with  his  adversaries  and  enemies.  While  one  could 
hardly  be  expected  to  have  the  actual  affection  for  them 
that  seems  to  have  been  felt  for  his  opponents  by  the  Mas- 
ter, he  can  always  treat  them  as  if  they  were  his  brothers. 
The  characteristics  of  mankind  that  make  a  union  with 
the  divine  purpose  necessary  and  normal,  should  perforce 
bring  one  into  unified  relations  with  all  his  fellows.  The 
consummation  of  activity  of  this  sort  must  be  the  gradual 
establishment  of  a  social  order  in  which  fraternity  will 
characterize  all  phases  of  social  life.  This  divine  society 
Jesus  describes  metaphorically  in  a  variety  of  ways,  such 
as  the  organic  growth  of  a  vine  and  its  branches  (Jn.  XV, 
I  f.),  or  the  activities  of  a  family  community  dwelling  in 
the  Father's  place  of  abode  (Jn.  XIV,  2  f.).  And  the 
members  of  this  group  are  spoken  of  as  "salt,"  the  all- 
important  condiment  for  the  religious  food  of  the  world 
{Mt.  V,  13),  and  are  viewed  as  companions  and  sympa- 
thetic yoke  fellows  (ML  XI,  28  ff.).  But  the  ideal  society 
is  most  frequently  indicated  by  the  "Kingdom  of  God," 
which  both  is  and  is  to  come,  for  the  members  are  con- 
stantly increasing  and  the  Kingdom  itself  expanding  its 
vision. 

Hence,  just  as  Jesus  holds  that  the  individual  man  is 
ideally  God's  son  and  may  make  the  relation  real  by  seek- 
ing to  attain  certain  ethical  qualities,  on  the  social  side 


JESUS'  IDEA  OF  MAN  97 

man  becomes  a  member  of  God's  Kingdom  when  he  rec- 
ognizes these  characteristics  as  the  laws  of  his  life.  The 
point  of  view  underlying  both  these  descriptions  of  man's 
nature  constitutes  the  peculiarity  and  imiqueness  of  the 
Master's  teaching  on  the  subject.  Instead  of  making 
morals  the  basis  of  religion,  religious  experience  is  the 
real  ground  of  morality.     Ethical  conduct  is  sought  ?^°^^',;r^^!!  . 

o  ./  o  Jesus,  the  basis 

to  attain  to  sonship,  and  right  social  relations  are  nee-  reHg^n.'^  '^  ^^ 

essary  to  enter  the  Kingdom  or  community  of  God.    And 

when  one  has  come  under  the  influence  and  direction  of 

these  ideals,  he  does  not  lose  his  real  self,  but  for  the  first 

time  finds  it.    He  has  entered  into  his  natural  inheritance 

and  become  the  son  of  God  and  a  member  of  the  divine 

society. 

The  Infinite  Worth  of  a  Human  Soul.  —  The  possi- 
bility of  securing  such  a  relationship  explains  the  repeated 
insistence  of  Jesus  upon  the  infinite  worth  of  every  human 
soul  and  upon  the  nature  and  unwisdom  of  sin.  The  de-  S?e^h^man*sod 
velopment  of  one's  soul  into  God's  likeness  and  the  secur-  ^  paramount. 
ing  of  sonship  cannot  be  accounted  secondary  to  any 
other  object  in  life,  whereas  a  sinful  life  means  discard- 
ing one's  likeness  and  severing  the  filial  relation,  and  con- 
stitutes the  most  suicidal  folly.  "What  good  is  it," 
asks  Jesus  rhetorically,  "to  a  man  to  gain  the  whole 
world,  and  forfeit  his  life  (or  soul)?  For  what  could  a 
man  give  that  is  of  equal  value  with  his  life?  "  (Mk.  VIII, 
36  f.  Cf.  ML  XVI,  26  and  Lk.  IX,  25).  Hence  the  crim- 
inal folly  of  the  rich  man  of  the  parable,  who  said  to  his 
soul:  "Soul,  thou  hast  much  goods  laid  up  for  many 
years,  take  thine  ease,  eat,  drink,  and  be  merry.  But 
God  said  unto  him,  Thou  foolish  one,  this  night  is  thy 


98  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

soul  required  of  thee;  and  the  things  which  thou  hast  pre- 
pared, where  shall  they  be?  So  is  he  that  layeth  up 
treasure  for  himself,  and  is  not  rich  toward  God"  ^  {Lk, 
XII,  19  £[.)•  This,  too,  is  the  significance  of  the  advice: 
''Do  not  be  anxious  about  your  life  here  —  what  you  can 
get  to  eat  or  drink;  nor  yet  about  your  body  —  what  you 
can  get  to  wear.  Is  not  life  more  than  food,  and  the  body 
than  its  clothing?"  {ML  VI,  25).  And,  similarly,  it  is 
held  to  be  better  to  lose  one's  hand,  foot,  or  eye  than  to 
lose  one's  soul  or  possibility  of  likeness  to  God  and  fel- 
lowship with  him  {Mk.  IX,  43  ff.)- 

It  was  because  of  his  feeling  for  the  sanctity  and  possi- 
bilities of  each  human  soul  that  Jesus  treated  every  one 
he  met  with  consideration  and  dignity.  He  was  uniformly 
kind  in  all  his  dealings,  whether  with  the  learned  Pharisee, 
the  supercilious  high  priest,  the  humble  peasant,  the  de- 
spised publican,  or  the  outcast  woman.  However  confi- 
dent or  humble,  every  human  being  was  to  him  a  real  per- 
son, with  a  soul  precious  beyond  measure.  This  accounts 
for  the  seeming  hyperbole: " If  any  one  puts  a  snare  in  the 
way  of  one  of  these  lowly  ones  who  believe  in  me,  it  would 
be  far  better  for  him  if  he  had  been  thrown  into  the  sea 
with  a  great  millstone  round  his  neck"  {Mk.  IX,  42). 
With  his  clear  insight,  he  realized  that  whatever  stands  in 
or"rd?gbus  ^^''^  the  way  of  a  man's  spiritual  life,  even  though  it  be  a  well- 
established  rehgious  tradition,  such  as  the  observance  of 
the  Sabbath,  must  give  way  {ML  XII,  10  ff.).  And  all 
these  evidences  of  the  Master's  high  valuation  of  the 
human  soul  harmonize  well  with  his  description  of  the 

iThe  King  James  Version  is  used  here,  since  it  brings  out 
more  clearly  the  chief  thought  of  the  paragraph. 


traditions. 


JESUS^  IDEA  OF  MAN  99 

Father's  watchful  care  and  solicitude,  previously  noted 
(p.  76).  To  him  who  regards  even  the  fall  of  a  sparrow, 
man  must  seem  of  infinite  importance. 

Abhorrence  for  Sin.  —  This  attitude  fully  accords  with 
the  abhorrence  that  Jesus  had  for  sin,  and  his  desire  to  do 
everything  possible  to  save  men  from  it.  To  him  sin 
meant  the  ruin  of  a  man's  real  self,  sacrificing  his  sonship  sm  is^^".^auirai 
to  God,  and  excluding  himself  from  the  divine  community. 
To  dress  the  idea  of  Jesus  in  more  modem  garb,  sin  y 
seemed  an  unnatural  and  abnormal  state  for  man.  It 
meant  a  failure  to  realize  his  higher  life.  It  implied  liv- 
ing with  his  most  primitive  and  outworn  instincts,  and 
not  developing  the  fife  of  the  spirit.  It  was  the  life  of 
the  lower  animals,  without  aim  or  guidance,  and  largely 
negated  all  the  social  instincts  and  impulses.  It  was  anti- 
social conduct,  a  disregard  for  or  an  invasion  of  the 
rights  of  one's  fellows.  It  was  a  repudiation  of  the 
ideas  of  duty,  law,  and  service,  and  an  arrested  de- 
velopment of  higher  living.  It  is,  therefore,  a  perversion,  ^/ 
and  a  rejection  of  man's  real  self.  A  human  race  over- 
come by  sin  would,  accordingly,  seem  a  contradiction  in 
terms,  since  it  implies  the  loss  or  want  of  development  of 
the  parts  of  man's  original  nature  that  constitute  him  man 
as  distinguished  from  the  brutes.  Habitual  sinning  means 
the  loss  of  spiritual  vision,  —  a  distortion  of  sight  lead- 
ing ultimately  to  an  inability  to  see.  "The  lamp  of  the 
body, "  said  Jesus,  "is  the  eye.  If  your  eye  is  unclouded, 
your  whole  body  will  be  Ht  up;  but,  if  your  eye  is  dis- 
eased, your  whole  body  will  be  darkened.  And  if  the 
inner  light  is  darkness,  how  intense  must  that  darkness 
be!"  {MU  VI,  22  f.;  Lk,  XI,  34  ff.)- 


ICX)  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

This  will  explain  why  Jesus  so  frequently  described 
asl  statfwhSe  ^^^  ^^  ^  ^^^^^  whcrc  somcthing  has  been  lost,  spoiled,  or 
something  is  separated,  and  has  failed  to  meet  the  need  for  which  it 
was  intended.  The  situation  of  sinful  humanity  is  lik- 
ened to  that  of  a  lost  sheep  {Lk.  XV,  3  ff.),  a  lost  coin 
{Lk.  XV,  8  fif.),  a  lost  son  {Lk.  XV,  11  ff.),  lost  health 
{Mk.  II,  17),  spoiled  fruit  {ML  VII,  17),  a  dead  limb 
{Jn.  XV,  6),  decayed  bodies  {Mt.  XXIII,  28),  exclusion 
from  the  light  {ML  XXII,  13),  loss  of  money  {ML  XXV, 
28),  and  separation  from  happiness  {ML  XXV,  41). 
The  apostle  Paul  renders  more  explicit  this  loss  of  son- 
ship  and  rejection  of  the  higher  life  implied  in  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus.  The  way  in  which  sin  cuts  man  adrift  from 
God  is  indicated  by  him  in  a  number  of  vivid  phrases. 
He  declares  that  sin  reduces  men  to  a  condition  where 
they  are  "cut  off  from  the  life  of  God"  {Eph.  IV,  18.  Cf, 
CoL  I,  21),  are  "in  the  world  without  God"  {Eph.  II,  12), 
and  are  "enemies  of  God"  {Rom.  V,  10;  CoL  I,  21),  and 
he  even  goes  so  far  as  repeatedly  to  declare  of  sinful  men 
that  "God  abandoned  them"  {Rom.  I,  24,  26,  28). 

Sin  Not  Technical  and  External.  —  With  Jesus  and  his 
followers,  then,  sin  was  not,  as  it  was  in  large  measure 
with  the  religious  authorities  of  his  day,  technical  and  ex- 
S  'outwar™ lifT  temal.  It  was  not  a  matter  of  outward  Hf e  nor  of  ritual 
and  ceremonial,  ^^^  cercmonial.  It  fouud  its  basis  in  perverseness  of  dis- 
position and  a  low  set  of  ideas  and  emotions,  rather  than 
in  eating  pork  or  a  failure  to  partake  of  unleaven  bread. 
While  Jesus  did  not  despise  these  observances,  he  held 
them  subordinate  to  the  spirit  in  which  they  were  per- 
formed. "There  is  nothing  external  to  a  man,"  he  de- 
clared {Mk.  VII,  15),  "which  by  going  into  him  can  *de- 


JESUS*  IDEA  OF  MAN  lOI 

file'  him;  but  the  things  that  come  out  of  a  man  are  the 
things  that  defile  him."  Even  words  and  acts  are  but 
the  expression  of  the  inner  life  of  principles  and  motives, 
and  at  best  can  be  regarded  only  as  an  index  and  are  not 
of  value  in  themselves.    ^'From  within,  out  of  the  hearts  but  proceeds 

'  irom  witnin; 

of  men,"  said  Jesus,  "there  come  evil  thoughts  —  un- 
chastity,  theft,  murder,  adultery,  greed,  wickedness, 
deceit,  lewdness,  envy,  slander,  haughtiness,  folly" 
{Mk.  VII,  21  f.;  ML  XV,  19).  Thus  Jesus  renders  more 
specific  both  the  words  of  the  elder  sage:  "As  a  man 
thinketh  in  his  heart,  so  is  he"  {Prov.  XXIII,  37),  and 
the  principles  of  the  modem  psychologist  to  the  effect 
that  "all  ideas  are  motor"  and  "there  can  be  no  im- 
pression without  expression." 

The  standard,  then,  is  one's  inner  attitude  and  dispo- 
sition, rather  than  some  outward  observance,  and  the 
types  of  people  that  are  warned  in  various  passages  by 
Jesus  that  they  are  in  danger  of  losing  their  birthright  all 
fall  under  this  test.  In  the  first  place,  he  tells  us  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  that  it  is  not  merely  overt  mur- 
derers or  adulterers  that  are  to  be  punished,  but  rather  l^l  Jype^of 
those  who  indulge  in  anger  or  unclean  thinking  {ML  V,  S  ^atut™^ 
21  ff.).  Jesus  likewise  predicts  a  dire  fate  to  the  scribes  ^'^  ^°^demned. 
and  Pharisees,  who  "pay  tithes  on  mint,  fennel,  and 
caraway  seed,  and  have  neglected  the  weightier  matters 
of  the  Law — justice,  mercy,  and  good  faith"  (ML  XXIII, 
23).  Again,  he  declares  that  at  the  Last  Judgment  will 
be  condemned  those  who  did  not  reveal  instinctive  pity 
for  the  poor,  himgry,  and  unfortunate  {ML  XXV,  42  fif.). 
Fourthly,  Jesus  excludes  from  the  kingdom  those  who 
have  failed  to  arrive  at  definite  convictions,  whether  they 


a  sinner  was 
never  hopeless, 


I02  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

look  back  after  putting  their  hand  to  the  plow  {Lk.  K, 
62),  or  refuse  to  utilize  their  opportunities  at  all  {ML 
XXV,  24).  While,  most  emphatically  of  all,  he  insists 
that  "whoever  slanders  the  Holy  Spirit  remains  unfor- 
given  to  the  end;  he  has  to  answer  for  an  enduring  sin" 
{Mk.  Ill,  29). 
Jesus  felt  that  The  Optimlsm  of  Jesus.  —  But  the  attitude  of  Jesus 
toward  those  who  were  "lost"  is  by  no  means  identical 
with  that  of  many  a  theologian  of  the  past  generation. 
He  did  not  use  the  word  at  all  in  the  same  sense.  Their 
condition  was  not  irreparable.  Those  who  were  "lost" 
might,  he  held,  be  found.  This  happened  in  the  case 
with  the  coin,  the  sheep,  and  the  prodigal  of  his  parables. 
Much  as  Jesus  abhorred  sin,  he  always  discriminated  in 
his  action  between  the  sinner  and  his  sin,  and  he  never 
allowed  himself  to  become  pessimistic  in  his  views  of  the 
former.  Realizing  that  a  sin  does  not  consist  primarily 
in  the  outward  act,  which  is  but  a  motor  accompaniment 
of  wrong  ideals  and  disposition,  he  felt  that  sinners  could 
be  made  over  through  the  reception  of  new  ideals  and 
interests  and  a  redirection  of  their  lives.  He  never  felt, 
in  consequence,  that  the  state  of  a  sinner  was  so  desperate 
as  to  lead  to  his  abandonment  as  hopelessly  lost.  His 
great  optimism  in  this  respect  and  his  continued  efforts  to 
reconstruct  the  life  of  those  who  had  strayed  led  to  his 
being  often  accused  of  leniency  and  even  toleration  of 
sin.  He  was  generally  known  as  "a  friend  of  taxgather- 
ers  and  outcasts"  {Mt.  XI,  19). 

It  was  likewise  this  recognition  of  inner  motives  as  the 
foundation  of  sin  and  of  the  possibility  of  substituting 
better  ideals  in  all  men  that  kept  Jesus  from  treating  men 


JESUS'  IDEA  OF  MAN  103 

as  sharply  divided  into  two  hard-and-fast  classes,  —  those 
who  sinned  and  were  hopelessly  bad,  and  those  who  did  be'^divfcTetflnt? 
not  and  were  ever  righteous.  While  he  himself  used  these  "sfnner?''and~ 
terms  — ''sinners"  (or  ''outcasts")  and  "righteous"—  "righteous," 
occasionally,  he  did  so  only  in  recognition  of  the  current 
practice,  and  repeatedly  showed  that  the  "unco'  good" 
were  often  the  greater  sinners  of  the  two.  The  official 
"sinners,"  both  in  his  parables  and  in  the  incidents  of 
his  life,  seemed  more  ready  to  respond  to  new  ideals  than 
the  righteous.  This  was  the  situation  with  the  two  sons, 
one  of  whom  said:  "I  will  not  go,  but  afterwards  he 
was  sorry  and  went,"  while  the  other  said,  "Yes,  sir, 
but  did  not  go"  (ML  XXI,  29  f.).  A  more  graphic  in- 
stance is  found  in  the  story  of  the  self-satisfied  Pharisee, 
and  the  publican,  who  "kept  striking  his  breast  and  say- 
ing, '0  God,  have  mercy  on  me,  a  sinner'  "  (Lk.  XVIII, 
10  if.) .  Because,  too,  of  his  belief  that  an  effective  appeal 
might  be  made  to  "sinners,"  Jesus  succeeded  in  trans- 
forming a  grasping  publican  named  Zaccheus  into  a  pub- 
lic benefactor  and  in  rendering  the  prostitute  Magdalene 
a  virtuous  disciple.  He  was  not,  however,  friendly  to 
publicans  and  sinners  simply  because  they  were  outcasts, 
but  because  he  wished  to  aid  the  sinning  whenever  they 
were  conscious  of  their  need.  Nor  was  he  prejudiced 
against  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  as  such,  but  was  glad  to 
befriend  them  when  they  abandoned  their  complacency 
and  sought  his  aid.  He  even  declared  of  one  scribe  that 
he  was  "not  far  from  the  Kingdom  of  God"  {Mk.  XII, 

34). 

Jesus,  then,  recognized  that  men  are  swayed  by  mixed 
motives,  and  that  there  is  good  and  bad  in  each  of  them. 


never  occurs. 


104  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

bf  nTked  mT"^  Thcrc  is  nothing  in  any  of  his  teachings  to  warrant  the 
de'^pravity"'^"^^^  austeic  doctrinc  of  "total  depravity,"  which  used  to  be 
preached.  He  nowhere  justij&ed  the  idea,  that,  because 
of  the  original  sin  of  our  first  parents,  men  are  by  nature 
altogether  inclined  toward  evil.  Jesus  recognized  the 
evil  tendencies  in  all,  but  saw  in  each  the  spark  of  the 
Divine,  and  believed  that  it  might  be  fanned  into  activ- 
ity. He  saw  the  ignorance,  weakness,  and  wickedness 
with  which  mankind  is  surrounded,  —  the  wrongs  in- 
flicted by  the  oppressor,  the  pride  of  the  overweening,  the 
insolence  of  the  official,  and  he  did  not  hesitate  to  rebuke 
wrongdoing  on  the  part  of  any  one,  but  he  never  de- 
spaired. He  showed  men  constantly  that  they  were 
being  estranged  from  God,  and  that  he  had  come  to  call 
them  back  to  their  better  selves.  Thus  the  new  inter- 
pretation of  man  offered  by  Jesus  gives  point  to  the  words 
of  the  psalmist:  ''What  is  man,  that  thou  art  mindful 
of  him?  And  the  son  of  man  that  thou  visitest  him? 
For  thou  hast  made  him  but  little  lower  than  God"  ^  (Ps. 
Vni,  4  f.).  Jesus'  idea  of  man  is  indeed  correlative  with 
his  concept  of  God,  and  enables  man  to  claim  his  sonship 
by  aspiring  to  the  higher  life. 

Summary.  —  The  common  sonship  to  God,  which  may 
be  secured  by  all  men,  constitutes  them  brothers  and 
fellow  members  of  the  divine  community.  Jesus  bases 
morals  upon  religion,  rather  than  the  reverse.  With  him 
the  development  of  the  human  soul  into  God's  likeness 
cannot  be  secondary  to  any  other  object,  and  he  abhors 
sin  as  a  rejection  of  a  man's  real  self.    Sin  Jesus  felt  to  be 

^  The  revised  version  can  easily  be  seen  to  be  a  great  improve- 
ment over  the  old  translation,  "little  lower  than  the  angels. " 


JESUS'  IDEA  OF  MAN  I05 

based  upon  the  inner  life,  rather  than  to  be  something 
external  and  technical,  and  the  types  of  people  he  holds 
to  be  condemned  are  judged  by  this  internal  test.  Hence 
he  discriminated  between  the  sinner  and  his  sin,  and  was 
exceedingly  optimistic  about  being  able  to  redirect  the 
lives  even  of  great  sinners.  Jesus  did  not  divide  men  into 
two  fixed  classes  as  " sinners''  and  *' righteous,"  but 
believed  that  men  were  swayed  by  mixed  motives,  and 
that  "total  depravity"  never  existed. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  READING 

BoswoRTH,  E.  I.    Studies  in  the  Teaching  of  Jesus.    Part  III. 

Glover,  T.  R.     The  Jesus  of  History.     Chapter  VI. 

Mathews,  Shailer.    Message  of  Jesus.    Study  II. 

Mathews,  S.    Social  and  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus.    Study  VI. 

Mathews,  S.    Social  Teaching  of  Jesus.     Chapter  II. 

Stalker,  James.     The  Ethic  of  Jesus.    Chapters  XIII  and  XIV. 

Stevens,  G.  B.    The  Teaching  of  Jesus.    Chapters  VIII  and  IX. 


CHAPTER  VI 

JESUS^    CONCEPTION   OF   THE  IDEALS  AND   RECONSTRUC- 
TION OF  LIFE 

Ethical  Theories  and  Their  Ideals.  —  When  we 
spoke  of  Jesus'  attitude  toward  sin  in  the  last  chapter, 
we  made  our  entrance  into  the  field  of  ethics.  Sin  con- 
stitutes the  negative  side  of  Christian  virtue  or  the 
failure  to  carry  into  effect  the  Hfe  ideals  presented  by 
Jesus.  Ethical  inquiry  has  always  been  interested  in 
the  nature  of  the  rjood  and  in  setting  up  some  "supreme 
good"  as  a  goal  or  ideal  for  one's  efforts.  This  summum 
bonunij  as  it  is  commonly  called,  has  been  conceived 
of  in  a  variety  of  ways  and  given  a  diversity  of  mean- 
?ShasTts°^  ings  corresponding  to  the  theories  of  the  various  schools 
"chief  good."  q£  ethics  regarding  the  nature  and  destiny  of  man  as 
a  rational  being  and  his  fundamental  relations  to  the 
Supreme  Being.  To  the  ''hedonist,"  for  example, 
pleasurable  feeling  is  the  ultimate  standard  of  moral 
value,  whereas  ''self-realizationists"  find  their  moral 
ideal  in  perfection  of  character  or  the  harmonious  de- 
velopment of  personal  capacities.  Naturally  the  goal 
of  self-realization  is  less  definite  and  affords  a  greater 
variety  of  theories  than  hedonism.  The  perfection  to 
be  attained  or  the  self  to  be  realized  can  be  decided 
upon  only  after  philosophical  inquiry. 

Jesus'  Ideals.  —  We  cannot  imagine  Jesus  plunging 
into  the  sea  of  abstract  metaphysics  or  consciously 

io6 


JESUS'  CONCEPTION  OF  LIFE'S  IDEALS  107 

setting  up  a  scientific  goal  for  conduct.  But  it  may  J^J^^^l^^'l^^ 
be  said,  without  straining  the  facts  or  committing  the  "d^fS'on^^^^' 
"historical  fallacy,"  that  he  stated  a  simple  and  clear- 
cut  summum  bonum  of  his  own,  and  while  this  can 
hardly  be  identified  with  that  of  the  self-realizationists, 
it  is  not  out  of  keeping  with  their  general  position.  As 
in  the  case  of  most  ethical  theories,  the  ideal  of  Jesus 
harmonizes  with  his  conception  of  man  and  of  man's 
relation  to  God.  To  one  teaching  the  fatherhood  of 
God  and  the  brotherhood  of  man,  the  "supreme  good" 
is  obedience  to  and  oneness  with  God,  and  in  general 
it  implies  love  to  God  and  man,  and  involves  service 
to  both.  These  ideals  Jesus  repeatedly  presents  in 
various  forms.  Once  a  wily  student  of  the  Law  under-  ^"jJi^uo''/'^*^ 
took  to  test  him  as  follows:  "Teacher,"  said  he,  "what 
must  I  do  if  I  am  to  'gain  Immortal  Life'  ?"  "What 
is  said  in  the  Law?"  answered  Jesus.  "What  do  you 
read  there?"  His  reply  was  —  "'Thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul, 
and  with  all  thy  strength,  and  with  all  thy  mind;  and 
thy  neighbor  as  thou  dost  thyself.'"  "You  have  an- 
swered right,"  said  Jesus,  "do  that  and  you  shall  live" 
(Lk.  X,  25  ff.  Cf.  Mk.  XII,  28  ff.;  ML  V,  43  ff-;  ML 
XXII,  35  ff.). 

Love  toward  God  and  man,  then,  is  Jesus'  ideal  for 
right  living.  As  John  (XIII,  35)  declares:  "It  is  by 
this  that  every  one  will  recognize  you  as  my  disciples  — 
by  your  loving  one  another."  "Love"  is,  however,  «iove'* 
susceptible  of  so  many  meanings,  and,  when  stated  as 
the  ideal  of  Jesus,  has  so  often  stamped  Christianity 
as  a  religion  of  sentimentality,  that  it  is  worth  while 


Io8  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

to  note  that  the  Greek  so  translated  is  often  a  cognate 
of  the  word  for  ''friend,"  and  a  more  accurate  concep- 
tion is  gained  by  thinking  of  the  ideal  as  friendship 
with  God  and  man.^  Such  a  feeling  of  loyalty  to  God 
and  of  good  will  to  men  will  inevitably  lead  to  a  desire 
for  social  service.  Hence  Jesus  gives  us  a  further  ideal 
in  his  statement  of  what  constitutes  true  greatness. 

and  "service,"  "Whocvcr  wants  to  bccomc  great  among  you  must  be 
your  servant,  and  whoever  wants  to  take  first  place 
among  you  must  be  the  servant  of  all;  for  even  the 
Son  of  Man  came,  not  to  be  served,  but  to  serve"  (Mk, 
X,  43  ff.  Cf.  Mk.  IX,  35;  ML  XX,  26;  XXIII,  11; 
XXV,  31-46;  Lk.  XXII,  27). 

Hence  the  sunimum  honum  of  Jesus  may  be  held  to 
be  the  emotion  of  friendly  love  toward  God  and  man, 
which  expresses  itself  in  service  to  one's  fellows.  These 
are  the  ideals  by  which  man's  moral  life  is  to  be  guided, 
and  which,  when  summing  up  his  greatest  teachings, 

embodied  in  the  jesus  cmbodics  in  the  form  of  the  Golden  Rule:  "Do 

Golden  Rule,  •' 

to  others  whatever  you  would  wish  them  to  do  to  you" 
{ML  VII,  i2\Lk.  VI,  31).  It  should  be  noted  that  this 
precept  is  as  practical  as  it  is  comprehensive.  It  does 
not  require  one  to  obliterate  or  lower  his  own  personal- 
ity, but  rather  to  maintain  self-respect  and  at  the  same 
time  similarly  regard  the  personality  of  every  one  else. 
Moreover,  we  have  seen  that  it  is  the  people  who  adopt 
these  ideals  of  Jesus  and  strive  to  follow  his  "rule" 

^The  Greek  verb  here  referred  to  is  (jycXeco^  but  ayaTrao)  is 
sometimes  (e.g.  ML  V,  43  and  Lk.  VII,  47)  employed  to  express 
much  the  same  idea.  In  Jn.  XXI,  15-17,  the  two  words  seem 
to  be  used  synonymously. 


JESUS'  CONCEPTION  OF  LIFE'S  IDEALS  IO9 

that  are  to  become  members  of  the  "Kingdom  of  God" 

{ML  V,  19  f.).     The  divine  community  thus  becomes  •J'lhf^Sgdom 

a  goal  of  human  efforts,  as  well  as  a  reward  of  persecu-  °^^°'*- 

tion  and  an  abode  of  blessedness,  and  membership  in 

it  may,  on  the  social  side,  be  viewed  as  a  species  of 

objectified  summum  honum. 

Jesus*  Conception  Contrasted  with  the  Formal  Ideas 
of  the  Day.  —  These  ideals  for  right  living,  however 
phrased,  are  simple,  clear,  and  easily  comprehended  by 
all.    They  make  a  direct  appeal  to  the  emotions,  in- 
telligence, and  behavior  of  every  one,  and  have  marked 
Christianity  as  a  universal  religion.     They  also  form 
a  strong  contrast  to  the  ceremonial  and  legal  idea  of  SlmS  wal 
righteousness  that  prevailed  among  many  m  the  day  op^^d  to?"'^ 
of  Jesus,  which  consisted  largely  in  such  external  acts 
as  keeping  the  commandments,  fasting,   and  tithing. 
The  fulfillment  of  these  formal  requirements,  of  course, 
is  not  necessarily  opposed  to  the  moral  ideals  presented 
by  Jesus,  but  both  then  and  in  modem  times  various 
ceremonial  and  ritualistic  observances,  denominational 
tests,  and  particular  ''isms''  have  tended  to  obscure  takVtTe>ace 
the  real  essence  of  religion  and  have  been  stressed  at  fieaLT"*''*^ 
the  expense  of  their  underlying  ethical  basis.    At  times 
external  acts  have  even  come  to  take  the  place  of  these 
fruits  of  the  spirit. 

This  was  a  danger  that  Jesus  fully  appreciated.  He 
constantly  inveighed  against  formal  practices  in  his 
teaching,  although  he  always  made  it  clear  that  the 
traditional  observances  were  not  intrinsically  opposed 
to  his  ethical  ideals.  For  example,  he  chided  the  Phari- 
sees, saying:  "You  pay  tithes  on  mint,  rue,  and  herbs 


no  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

of  all  kinds,  and  peiss  over  justice  and  love  of  God/' 
but  added:  "These  last  you  ought  to  have  put  in  prac- 
tice without  neglecting  the  first"  {Lk.  XI,  42).  On  the 
other  hand,  he  first  strove  to  establish  sympathetic 
relations  with  his  auditors  upon  the  Mount  by  saying: 
"Do  not  think  that  I  have  come  to  do  away  with  the 
Law  or  the  Prophets;  I  have  not  come  to  do  away  with 
them,  but  to  complete  them."  And  he  then  uttered 
the  warning:  "Unless  your  religion  is  above  that  of 
the  Teachers  of  the  Law  and  Pharisees,  you  will  never 
enter  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven"  {Mt.  V,  20). 

But  the  clearest  contrast  drawn  between  the  two 
attitudes,  as  well  as  the  most  extreme  requirement  ever 
made  of  any  one  by  Jesus,  is  found  in  the  case  of  the 
^sfo?  the  rich  ^^^  young  man,  who  wished  to  know  what  he  must  do 
young  man.  ^q  sccurc  Immortal  Life.  Jesus  used  the  Ten  Command- 
ments as  a  preliminary  test  of  his  earnestness,  and 
finding  that  he  had  always  kept  every  formal  observance, 
added:  "'There  is  still  one  thing  wanting  in  you;  go 
and  sell  all  that  you  have,  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  you 
shall  have  wealth  in  Heaven;  then  come  and  follow  me.' 
But  the  man's  face  clouded  at  these  words,  and  he  went 
away  distressed,  for  he  had  great  possessions"  {Mk.  X, 
21  f.).  A  detailed  and  graphic  touch  which  seems  fairly 
in  keeping  with  the  incident  is  that  given  in  the  variant 
presented  by  the  apocryphal  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews  (see  p.  14):  "The  rich  man  began  to  scratch 
his  head  and  it  did  not  please  him.  And  the  Lord  said 
to  him,  'How  say  est  thou,  "The  Law  I  have  kept  and 
the  Prophets"?  For  it  is  written  in  the  law,  "Thou 
shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,"  and  behold,  many 


JESUS'  CONCEPTION  OF  LIFE's  IDEALS  III 

who  are  thy  brethren  are  clad  in  filth  and  dying  of 
hunger,  and  thy  house  is  full  of  many  good  things,  and 
nothing  at  all  goes  out  from  it  to  them.'"  Jesus  thus 
made  clear  the  contrast  between  the  spirit  and  the  letter 
of  the  old  requirements,  and  gave  the  yoimg  man  the 
strong  antidote  needed  for  the  formalism  and  selfish- 
ness into  which  he  had  fallen.  And  many  a  professed 
follower  of  the  Master  to-day,  who  stands  high  both 
in  the  synagogue  and  the  market-place,  may  similarly 
need  to  be  forced  to  hark  back  to  these  ideals  underly- 
ing and  animating  the  formal  observances  and  external 
tests. 

Characteristics  of  Jesus'  Ideals  and  the  Resulting 
Christian  Virtues.  —  It  may  be  well  to  analyze  further 
the  ideals  of  '4ove"  and  ''service,"  that  their  connota-  "^°^?.e"^lipiy 
tion  may  be  more  fully  understood.     The  Sermon  on  -jrcel'Seek"" 
the  Mount  reveals  a  variety  of  specific  characteristics  SeS;  and^X'r 
that  are  implied  by  these  concepts,  and  a  number  of  *^'^^^'**^^' 
precepts  that  find  their  root  in  them.    The  qualities 
especially  commended  in  the  Beatitudes  are  humility, 
penitence,  meekness,  righteousness,  compassion,  purity 
of  heart,  peaceableness,  and  endurance  of  injury  {Mt.  V, 
3-9).    It  is  interesting  to  see  that  the  first  four  of  these 
characteristics  seem  to  represent  the  individual  attitude, 
while  the  last  four  imply  social  relations.    The  ''poor  in 
spirit,"  or  humble,  are  those  who  have  attained  to  a 
modest  estimate  of  self;  the  "mourners"  have  aspirations 
toward  a  higher  self;  the  "meek"  observe  the  right  at- 
titude toward  personal  honors;  and  "  those  who  hunger 
and  thirst  for  righteousness"  seek  an  upright  life.    On 
the  other  hand,  the  "merciful"  cultivate  a  kindly  atti- 


113  "WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

tude  toward  their  fellows;  the  "pure  in  heart"  wish  to 
maintain  a  moral  environment;  the  "peacemakers"  bring 
harmony  into  social  relations;  and  those  "persecuted  for 
righteousness'  sake"  ofifer  their  lives  and  comfort  in  the 
cause  of  social  reform,  patriotism,  and  civilization.  Later 
in  the  discourse,  as  recorded  by  Matthew  (V,  22-47  ^^^ 
VI,  1-18),  Jesus  brings  out  the  implication  of  his  ideals, 
both  individual  and  social,  from  a  negative  point  of  view. 
He  forbids  angry  feelings,  continued  enmity,  impure 
thoughts,  plurality  of  family  relations,  use  of  oaths  to 
obscure  the  truth,  revenge,  limitation  of  "love"  to 
one's  friends,  and  ostentatious  giving,  praying,  and  fast- 
ing, 
^^j^chrktknity  Thus,  through  the  ideals  of  Jesus,  Christianity  came 
group  of  virtues,  ^q  g^alt  a  new  group  of  virtues  and  to  inculcate  an 
entirely  dijBferent  point  of  view  from  that  of  any  of  the 
philosophies  that  had  preceded.  In  distinction  to  the 
wisdom,  courage,  temperance,  justice,  high-mindedness, 
liberality,  imperturbability,  and  other  virtues  of  Plato, 
Aristotle,  and  the  later  Greeks,  self-sacrifice,  charity, 
mercy,  peace,  forgiveness,  and  long-suffering  have  since 
the  time  of  Jesus  characterized  the  highest  levels  of 
civilization.  Men  have  no  longer  merely  exulted  in  the 
pride  of  life,  but  faced  one  another  as  creatures  requiring 
help,  consolation,  and  comfort.  As  children  of  a  com- 
mon father  and  neighbors  in  a  divine  commimity,  they 
have  adhered  to  the  ideals  of  "love"  and  "service,"  and 
have  realized  the  need  of  aid  from  their  fellows  and 
salvation  from  God. 

Misunderstanding  and  Criticism  of  "Passive"  Vir- 
tues.—  These  virtues  that  have  sprung  from  Jesus* 


JTESUS'  CONCEPTION  OF  LIFE'S  IDEALS  II3 

ideals  of  "love"  and  "service"  have  been  generally  char- 
acterized as  "passive."  They  have  often  been  severely  5rtJ^s"5^j'ot" 
criticised  as  impractical  and  even  hysterical  by  those  sbfinM°°"' 
who  pride  themselves  upon  being  red-blooded  and  stren- 
uous in  their  Hving.  The  hyperboUc  passage  in  which 
Jesus  seems  to  advocate  the  most  radical  nonresistance 
has  especially  been  an  object  of  ridicule.  In  this  he 
advises:  "I  say  to  you  that  you  must  not  resist  wrong; 
but  if  any  one  strike  you  on  the  right  cheek,  turn  the 
other  to  him  also;  and  when  any  one  wants  to  go  to  law 
with  you,  to  take  your  coat,  let  him  have  your  cloak  as 
well;  and,  if  any  one  compels  you  to  go  one  mile,  go  two 
miles  with  him"  (ML  V,  39  ff.). 

But  it  should  be  remembered  that  this  teaching  was 
given  to  contrast  as  sharply  as  possible  his  policy  of 
patience  with  that  of  revenge.  It  was  a  reaction  to  the 
statement  just  preceding:  "You  have  heard  that  it  was 
said  —  'An  eye  for  an  eye  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth,'" 
and  it  was  intended  more  as  a  complete  repudiation  of  but  opposition 

,  ,  ,  ,  .  to  vengeance, 

this  ancient  doctrme  of  vengeance  than  as  an  advocacy 
of  nonresistance.  Jesus  felt  that,  of  the  two  evils,  it 
would  be  better  to  endure  repeated  injury  than  con- 
stantly to  seek  revenge,  since  the  attempt  to  equal  or 
outdo  a  wrong  that  has  been  inflicted  is  the  direct  cause 
of  the  greatest  evils  in  life,  and  never  removes  any  in- 
jury or  wrong.  He  wished  to  emancipate  the  world 
from  the  prevailing  rule  of  force  by  cultivating  a  con- 
trol of  resentment  and  hatred.  He  realized  how  strongly 
imbedded  in  human  nature  is  the  primitive  instinct  of 
retaliation  and  revenge,  and  the  necessity  for  overcoming 
it  in  the  life  of  reason  and  morality.    Hence  he  dramat- 


114  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

ically  declares  that  even  the  most  humiliating  surrender 

is  better  for  a  man  that  the  continuance  of  dissension 

and  increasing  bitterness  of  feeling. 

Moreover,  as  we  have  indicated  (see  p.  5),  the  whole 

of  Jesus'  teaching  on  any  subject  is  seldom  found  in  a 

single  passage.    His  radical  position  here  must  be  esti- 

for  Jesus  could     mated  in  connection  with  his  attitude  and  acts  else- 
be  most  severe, 

where.  Jesus  was  certainly  no  mollycoddle.  He  was 
possessed  of  the  stronger  and  more  rugged  marks  of 
character,  as  well  as  of  the  milder  and  gentler.  He 
advocated  courage,  justice,  and  firmness,  when  the  occa- 
sion called  for  these  virtues,  as  tenaciously  as  he  did 
compassion,  tenderness,  and  mercy  in  their  turn.  In  his 
perfect  character  were  blended  stern,  as  well  as  mild 
traits,  for  the  strongest  minds  are  ever  the  gentlest. 

Accordingly,  while  Jesus  counseled  long-suffering  and 

forgiveness  in  extreme  language,  where  this  advice  was 

needed,  he  could  be  most  severe  in  his  denunciation  of 

as  in  the  case  of  the  corruDt  scribcs  and  Pharisees.     His  excoriation  of 

the  scribes  and 

Pharisees,  thcsc  promiucut  classes  as  ^'hypocrites,"  "blind  guides," 

"whitewashed  tombs,"  "serpents  and  brood  of  vipers," 
and  "persecutors  of  the  prophets,"  is  one  of  the  most 
scathing  in  history  (ML  XXIII,  14-36).  Upon  another 
occasion  he  did  not  hesitate  to  deliver  a  stinging  rebuke 

ring  S\K^^'''^  and  even  to  drive  the  corrupt  and  grafting  ring  of  mer- 
chants and  bankers  from  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem  by 
force.  When  he  found  some  of  these  people  in  the  sacred 
place  selling  oxen,  sheep,  and  doves  for  the  sacrifices, 
and  others  making  large  gains  in  the  exchange  of  foreign 
coin  for  the  Hebrew  currency,  in  which  alone  the  priests' 
charges  could  be  paid,  "he  made  a  whip  of  cords,  and 


Temple. 


JESUS'  CONCEPTION  OF  LIFE'S  IDEALS  II5 

drove  them  all  out  of  the  Temple  Courts,  and  the  sheep 
and  bullocks  as  well;  he  scattered  the  money  of  the 
money  changers,  and  overturned  their  tables,  and  said 
to  the  pigeon  dealers:  'Take  these  things  away.  Do 
not  turn  my  Father's  House  into  a  market-house'"  {Jn. 
II,  13  ff.)-  And  the  need  of  this  discipline  is  shown 
by  their  abrupt  flight.  "Thus  conscience  doth  make 
cowards  of  us  all." 

The  "  Passive  "  Virtues  and  the  Invasion  of  Rights. — 
Assuredly  these  "passive"  virtues  of  Jesus  do  not  in  his  These  virtues  are 

-  ,         .  »  .         ^,^  J  •  ^^^  inconsistent 

judgment  seem  to  be  inconsistent  with  preventing  or  with  resisting 

..  ,...  .  ..an  invasion  of 

resisting  a  personal  indignity  or  contesting  an  invasion  nghts; 
of  human  rights.  He  did  not  wish  to  countenance 
aggressive  and  persistent  injury,  but  simply  to  forestall 
continued  hate.  "Take  heed  to  yourselves,"  he  en- 
joined the  disciples;  "if  thy  brother  sin,  rebuke  him," 
though  he  added:  "if  he  repent,  forgive  him."  Similarly, 
we  repeat  that  the  injunction  to  "love  thy  neighbor  as 
thou  dost  thyself"  {ML  XXII,  39),  does  not  imply  ab- 
solute self-renunciation,  but  admits  a  respect  for  one's 
own  rights  not  less  than  for  the  neighbor's.  So  Jesus 
openly  resented  the  unwarranted  blow  given  him  by  the 
police  officer  at  his  trial,  saying:  "If  I  said  anything 
wrong,  give  evidence  about  it;  but  if  not,  why  do  you 
strike  me?"  {Jn.  XVIII,  23). 

The  misinterpretation  of  the  ideals  of  Jesus  in  this 
matter  of  force  has  been  heightened  by  the  Hteral  way 
in  which  they  have  been  taken  and  followed  by  certain 
visionaries  and  doctrinarians.  Strange  indeed  has  been 
the  perversion  of  his  teachings  by  people  possessed  of 
such  millennial  zeal  as  Count  Tolstoy  and  other  phil- 


ii6 


■WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 


do  not  Imply 
withdrawal  of 
restraint  or  con- 
donement  of 
crime; 


and  are  no  ar- 
gument against 
righteous  war. 


osophic  anarchists.  The  desire  of  Jesus  to  eliminate  re- 
venge and  strife  from  the  world  has  at  times  been  inter- 
preted as  the  withdrawal  of  all  restraint  of  depredation 
and  the  refusal  to  punish  any  crime.  But  the  fact  that 
the  Master  did  not  formulate  a  definite  philosophy  of 
either  nonresistance  or  force,  does  not  by  any  means 
indicate  that  he  would  ever  have  thwarted  the  cause  of 
justice  or  have  predetermined  any  case.  There  is  no 
reason  to  believe  that  he  would  have  sanctioned  a  free 
rein  for  evildoers  to  prey  upon  society,  nor  that  he 
would  have  discouraged  the  efforts  of  society  to  reform 
its  members  by  righteous  punishment.  The  indulgence 
of  an  injured  individual  in  selfish  emotion  and  revenge 
is  very  different  from  a  calm  and  sympathetic  judgment 
by  an  enlightened  community. 

Equally  has  the  professed  pacifist  and  internationalist 
strained  the  Master's  teachings  into  a  forbidding  of 
war,  even  in  a  righteous  cause.  Jesus  did  request  of 
the  friend  who  used  force  at  his  arrest:  "Sheath  your 
sword,  for  all  who  draw  the  sword  will  be  put  to  the 
sword"  {ML  XXVI,  52).  But,  on  the  other  hand,  we 
find  him  declaring:  "I  have  come  to  bring,  not  peace, 
but  a  sword"  {Mt.  X,  34).  Nor  should  his  judgment 
in  this  individual  case  of  yielding  to  his  destiny  be  ex- 
tended to  cover  nonresistance  at  all  times  and  seasons, 
and  to  justify  the  notion  that  the  sword  should  never 
be  used  in  defense  of  human  rights.  Long-standing 
abuses  and  injuries  to  the  welfare  of  humanity  and 
civilization  must,  when  peaceful  methods  have  failed, 
be  removed  by  force,  if  "love,"  "service,"  and  the 
"Kingdom  of  God"  are  to  prevail.     War  is  always 


JESUS'  CONCEPTION  OF  LIFE'S  IDEALS  II7 

ethical  and  Christian,  whenever  avoidance  of  it  would 
tolerate  a  condition  more  evil  and  unchristian  than 
itself. 

The  Christian  Virtues  and  Actual  Practice. —  Nor 
must  the  "passive  virtues''  be  supposed  to  imply  want  JJfuJs^df  j'ot 
of  activity.  "Service,"  as  well  as  "love,"  leads  to  the  ic&^'°* 
"Kingdom  of  God,"  and  is  the  keynote  to  the  teaching 
of  Jesus.  Love  and  friendship  are  evidenced  only  by 
their  results.  Jesus  expressed  this  need  of  putting  his 
ideals  into  practice  by  a  well-known  parable:  "Every- 
one, therefore,  that  listens  to  this  teaching  of  mine  and 
acts  upon  it  may  be  compared  to  a  prudent  man,  who 
built  his  house  upon  the  rock.  The  rain  poured  down, 
the  rivers  rose,  the  winds  blew  and  beat  upon  that 
house,  but  it  did  not  fall,  for  the  foundations  were  upon 
the  rock"  (ML  VII,  24  f.).  On  the  other  hand,  he 
likened  those  who  did  not  act  upon  his  teachings  to 
the  man  that  built  his  house  upon  the  sand,  and  soon 
had  it  swept  away. 

The  Master  also  constantly  indicated  that  his  ideals 
required  embodiment  in  action  by  emphasizing  the 
work  involved.  The  Kingdom  of  God  in  a  parable 
challenges  those  unemployed  with  the  query:  "Why 
have  you  been  standing  here  all  day  long,  doing  noth- 
ing?" (ML  XX,  6).  Likewise  he  refers  to  the  disciples 
in  this  parable  of  the  vineyard  as  "laborers"  {ML  XX, 
i),  and  elsewhere  (Lk.  XII,  37)  he  compares  them  to 
the  vigilant  "servants"  of  the  master  returning  from 
the  wedding  feast.  Similar  figurative  speech  and  use 
of  terms  signifying  activity  and  responsibility  con- 
stantly appear  in  the  teachings  of  Jesus.     "Ask,  and 


Il8  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

your  prayer  shall  be  granted;  search,  and  you  shall 
find;  knock,  and  the  door  shall  be  opened  to  you'* 
{Mt.  VII,  7),  is  the  essence  of  Christianity.  The  apostle 
James  (III,  17),  therefore,  was  but  following  his  Master's 
conception  of  life's  ideals  when  he  declared:  *' Faith, 
if  not  followed  by  actions  is,  by  itself,  a  lifeless  thing." 
The  Meaning  of  "  Conversion  "  and  "  Salvation." — 
But,  besides  determining  the  nature  of  the  ''good" 
and  in  setting  up  a  ''supreme  good,"  every  system  of 
ethics  is  vitally  concerned  in  the  most  efiicient  means 
of  securing  and  disseminating  the  effects  of  this  "good." 
Through  the  influence  of  the  summum  honum  as  a  guid- 
ing ideal,  it  is  held  that  the  Hves  of  those  adopting  it 
will  be  reconstructed.  This  is  clearly  the  main  purpose  of 
the  informal  and  exceedingly  practical  ethical  teachings  of 
Jesus.  Since  men  may  become  the  sons  of  God  by  striv- 
ing after  the  divine  attributes,  attained  through  "love" 
and  "service,"  "sin"  simply  means  unfilial  life  or  the 
repudiation  of  likeness  to  God.  And  since  each  human 
"Conversion."     soul  is  of  infinite  importance,  every  one  must  be  led  to 

or  turning  back  ,  ^         ^     »  -i.  »     t       p     ^  ^    »  rr-ii 

to  God,  leads  to  discard  sm  and  claim  his  rightful  sonship.     The  act 

the  state  known  ^  '^  *■ 

as  "salvation."  or  proccss  of  turning  one's  life  back  to  obedience  to 
God  and  to  the  divine  characteristics  through  the 
adoption  of  the  ideals  of  Jesus  has  long  been  known  in 
Christian  parlance  as  "conversion,"  and  the  state  at- 
tained thereby  is  generally  called  "salvation." 

This  reconstruction  of  a  man,  often  spoken  of  by 

Jesus  as  the  attainment  of  the  "righteous,"  ''  immortal," 

SJf  Ster^"^^"  ^^  "eternal"  life,  is  effected,  according  to  the  Master, 

ItSnmeit^^oP^  through  repcutance  and  faith,  and  comes  through  the 

tte;' eternal       gracc  and  forgiveness  of  God.    He  started  his  ministry  by 


JESUS'   CONCEPTION  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  II9 

declaring:  "The  time  has  come,  and  the  Kingdom  of  God 
is  at  hand;  repent,  and  believe  the  Good  News"  (Mk.  I, 
15).  Later  he  applied  the  poetic  words  of  Isaiah  to 
those  who  have  failed  to  receive  his  message  of  salva- 
tion: ''The  mind  of  this  nation  has  grown  dense,  and 
their  ears  are  dull  of  hearing,  their  eyes  also  have  they 
closed;  lest  some  day  they  should  perceive  with  their 
eyes,  and  with  their  ears  they  should  hear,  and  in  their 
mind  they  should  understand,  and  should  turn  —  and 
I  should  heal  them"  (ML  XIII,  15). 

Thus,  in  this  process  of  conversion  eventuating  in 
salvation,  men  must  give  up  their  sin,  and  turn  to 
obedience,  Godlikeness,  and  sonship.  In  psychological 
terms,  this  simply  means  overcoming  or  reshaping  the  j^esS^i'^l'^ van- 
inherited  instincts  and  fixed  habits  that  are  inconsistent  ^^^  °^  ^^"'■^^• 
with  the  highest  ideals  and  the  life  of  reason.  This  proc- 
ess is  described  by  Jesus  in  a  variety  of  figures,  all  of 
which  express  more  or  less  the  surrender  and  humility 
necessary  for  recognizing  one's  state,  repenting,  and 
following  the  new  ideals  and  precepts.  Besides  the 
familiar  phrases,  "entering  (or  'receiving')  the  King- 
dom of  God,"  he  uses  (e.g.  Mt.  XI,  28  ff.)  such  terms 
as  "coming  to  Christ,"  "learning  of  Christ,"  "taking 
up  his  cross,"  "drinking  of  his  cup,"  and  "taking  his 
yoke."  ^    Sometimes  two  or  more  of  these  expressions 

^  It  is  most  unfortunate  that  these  and  other  beautiful  and  apt 
metaphors  should  have  become  cant  terms  in  the  vocabulary  of 
the  obscurantist  and  religious  sentimentalist.  Such  expressions 
as  "saved  by  the  blood,"  "saved  by  the  Lamb,"  "coming  to 
Christ,"  "taking  his  cross,"  "drinking  of  his  cup,"  and  "being 
bom  again,"  have  too  often  been  used  to  the  confusion  of  the 


I20  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

are  used  together.    The  importance  of  the  step  Jesus 
describes  by  comparing  it  to  the  discovery  of  a  "treasure 
hidden  in  a  field"  or  *'a  pearl  of  great  value"  {ML 
XIII,  44  ff.)>  2,nd  he  indicates  the  quiet,  gradual,  and 
effective  way  in  which  salvation  proceeds  by  likening 
the  expansion  of  the  Kingdom  to  that  of  the  yeast  in 
the  flour  {ML  XVIII,  S3'^  Lk,  XIII,  20  f.),  of  the  com 
into  "first  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  and  then  the  full 
grain  in  the  ear"  {Mk.  IV,  28  f.),  and  of  the  small 
mustard  seed  into  a  tree  {Mk,  IV,  31  f.;  ML  XVIII, 
31  f.),  respectively. 
The  Threefold  Means  of  Accomplishing  Reconstruc- 
fcSSgjor  this  ^^^  Used  by  Jesus.  —  The  means  used  by  Jesus  to 
jesSf  uSd  as°     bring  about  this  reconstruction  of  human  lives  has  been 
means  thrccfold.    Bcsidcs  his  revelation  of  the  fatherhood  of 

God,  the  potential  sonship  of  man,  the  ideals  of  "love" 
and  "service,"  and  other  features  in  his  teaching  al- 
ready discussed  at  length,  humanity  has  been  greatly 
influenced  by  two  other  factors.  These  are,  first,  the 
embodiment  of  these  truths  in  the  Master's  own  life, 
and,  second,  the  great  example  of  fidelity^to  conviction 
uifit7  with  Ihe  ^^^  ^^ty  furnished  by  his  death. 
Father,  and  jj^^  jj£g  ^f  jggug  would  sccm  to  bc  uuique.    It  was 

that  of  the  perfect  genius  in  religion.  He  believed  that 
his  life  was  ever  united  with  that  of  the  Father.  He 
lived  in  harmony  with  his  conception  of  God's  will, 
and  sought  aid  through  prayer  in  his  efforts  to  over- 
religious  consciousness  or  indulgence  in  maudlin  emotions  that 
lead  nowhere.  Religious  tactics  of  this  sort  have  often  kept  in- 
telligent people  from  realizing  that  Christianity  is  thoroughly 
rational  and  in  harmony  with  the  highest  aspirations  of  humanity. 


JESUS'  CONCEPTION  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  121 

come  sin  and  external  difficulties.  Thus  Jesus  stirred 
men  to  emulation  by  revealing  the  possibilities  of  human 
life  in  his  own  life  and  character.  He  felt  that  the  most 
beneficent  results  coming  to  his  disciples  through  com- 
panionship with  himself  were  due  to  sharing  in  this 
commimion  he  held  with  the  Father.  In  his  most  re- 
markable intercession  for  his  disciples,  he  asked  "that 
as  thou,  Father,  art  in  union  with  me  and  I  with  thee, 
so  they  also  may  be  in  union  with  us,"  and  then  he 
declared:  "I  have  given  them  the  honor  which  thou 
hast  given  me,  that  they  may  be  one  as  we  are  one  — 
I  in  union  with  them  and  thou  with  me  —  that  so  they 
may  be  perfected  in  their  union"  {Jn,  XVII,  21  £f.)- 
The  Master  believed  that  in  this  way  their  natural 
demand  for  a  union  with  God  would  be  satisfied.  This 
companionship,  in  turn,  would  result  in  new  moral 
motives,  impulses,  and  choices,  or,  as  John  (III,  3  and  6) 
phrases  it,  in  being  "bom  again." 
The  other  factor  in  the  influence  of  Jesus  was  his  his  death  as  an 

<.T»i»  example  of  fidel- 

death.  Through  this  supreme  test  of  his  devotion  to  itytoduty. 
God,  men  were  encouraged  to  submit  their  wills  to 
God's  purpose  in  the  world  and  to  come  to  the  life  of 
complete  obedience  and  harmony.  With  his  extreme 
reforms,  Jesus  foresaw  that  death  at  the  hands  of  the 
rulers  was  inevitable,  but  he  never  for  an  instant  de- 
viated from  his  ideals  and  conception  of  his  duty.  The 
disciples,  however,  were  unable  to  understand  that  the 
Kingdom  of  which  Jesus  spoke  was  not  earthly  and 
material,  and  were  stunned  at  the  idea  of  his  being  put 
to  death.  When  Peter  began  to  protest  vehemently, 
Jesus  had  to  explain  that  this  was  the  only  way  in  which 


122  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

his  mission  could  be  performed.  Self-sacrifice,  he  de- 
clared, was  the  inevitable  concomitant  of  reform,  and 
all  who  wished  to  follow  him  must  be  self-den3dng  even 
to  the  point  of  surrendering  life  itseK.  Moreover, 
neither  his  death  nor  any  sacrifice  of  theirs  should  be 
viewed  as  defeat  and  disaster,  but  rather  as  a  victory 
of  incalculable  benefit  to  humanity.  The  account  of 
the  whole  incident  is  most  memorable: 

"At  that  time  Jesus  Christ  began  to  explain  to  his 
disciples  that  he  must  go  to  Jerusalem,  and  undergo  much 
suffering  at  the  hands  of  the  Councilors,  and  Chief  Priests, 
and  Teachers  of  the  Law,  and  be  put  to  death,  and  rise 
on  the  third  day.  But  Peter  took  Jesus  aside,  and  began 
to  rebuke  him.  '  Master,'  he  said,  'please  God  that  shall 
never  be  your  fate!'  Jesus,  however,  turning  to  Peter, 
said:  'Out  of  my  way,  Satan!  You  are  a  hindrance  to 
me;  for  you  look  at  things,  not  as  God  does,  but  as  man 
does.'  Then  Jesus  said  to  his  disciples:  'If  any  man 
wishes  to  walk  in  my  steps,  let  him  renounce  self,  and 
take  up  his  cross,  and  follow  me.  For  whosoever  wishes 
to  save  his  life  will  lose  it,  and  whosoever  for  my  sake, 
loses  his  life  shall  find  it.  .  .  .  For  the  Son  of  Man  is  to 
come  in  his  Father's  Glory.  .  .  and  then  he  will  give  to 
every  man  what  his  actions  deserve ' "  (ML  XVI,  21-28). 

Thus  by  his  death  Jesus  set  for  all  men  an  example  of 
fidelity  to  duty.  Hence,  it  happened  that,  even  as  Judas 
went  out  to  betray  him,  the  Master  could  declare  prophet- 
ically: "Now  the  Son  of  Man  has  been  exalted,  and  God 
has  been  exalted  through  him;  and  God  will  exalt  him 
with  himself  —  yes,  he  will  exalt  him  forthwith  "  (Jn. 
XIII,  31  f.). 


JESUS'  CONCEPTION  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  1 23 

Summary.  —  The  ethics  of  Jesus  seems  to  be  in  har- 
mony with  "self -realization,"  and  finds  its  summum 
honum  in  "love "  and  "service."  Hence  the  Golden  Rule 
becomes  its  precept  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  its  goal. 
The  ceremonial  and  legal  idea  of  righteousness  that  pre- 
vailed in  the  day  of  Jesus  contrasted  strongly  with  these 
ethical  ideals  of  his.  When  further  analyzed,  Jesus' 
ideals  of  "love  "  and  "service  "  are  found  to  imply  charity, 
mercy,  forgiveness,  and  a  number  of  new  virtues.  In 
teaching  these  "passive"  virtues,  Jesus  did  not  advocate 
nonresistance,  nor  argue  against  righteous  war.  And 
the  Christian  virtues,  though  "passive,"  were  intended 
to  be  put  into  practice.  Through  these  ideals  of  Jesus  the 
lives  of  those  adopting  them  are  to  be  reconstructed. 
"Conversion,"  or  turning  one's  life  back  to  God,  leads 
to  "salvation"  and  membership  in  the  Kingdom.  To 
efifect  this  reconstruction,  Jesus  used  a  threefold  means,  — 
his  life  and  death,  as  well  as  his  teachings.  His  life  was 
unique  in  its  union  with  the  purposes  of  the  Father;  his 
death  was  an  example  of  fidelity  to  duty. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  READING 

Dewey,  J.,  and  Tufts,  J.  H.  Ethics.  Chapter  VI. 
Glover,  T.  R.  The  Jesus  of  History.  Chapter  VII. 
Jenks,  Jeremiah  W.    Social  Significance  of  the  Teaching  of  Jesus, 

Study  XII. 
King,  H.  C.    The  Ethics  of  Jesus.    Chapters  V-VIII. 
Mathews,  Shailer.    Message  of  Jesus.    Studies  III  and  IX. 
Mathews,  S.    Social  and  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus.    Studies 

IV  and  V. 
Stalker,  James.    The  Ethic  of  Jesus.    Chapters  I,  IV-VIII, 

and  XT-XIII. 
Stevens,  G.B.  The  Teaching  of  Jesus,  Chapters  IX,  XI,  and  XII. 


CHAPTER  Vn 

THE   TEACHING  OF  JESUS  CONCERNING  THE  FUTURE 

Jesus  and  the  Resurrection.  —  After  having  completed 
our  discussion  of  Jesus'  conception  of  God  and  man,  and 
of  life's  ideals  and  their  effect  upon  the  regeneration  of  the 
race,  we  might  seem  to  have  all  of  his  message  that  can 
possibly  prove  fruitful  to  humanity.  Our  real  concern 
should  be  for  the  improvement  of  society  and  for  right 
living  here  on  earth,  without  regard  to  the  future  state, 
for  this  is  within  our  immediate  control  and  responsi- 
bility. If  man  is  immortal  and  all  human  beings  continue 
to  exist  in  some  form  hereafter,  the  whole  matter  must 
be  in  the  hands  of  a  Supreme  Being,  infinitely  wiser  than 
we  are,  and  we  can  afford  to  intrust  the  future  to  him. 
Speculation  would  seem  to  be  vain  and  idle,  and  immor- 
tality, whether  true  or  not,  might  seem  of  little  import 
in  our  daily  life. 

All  of  this  reasoning  might  be  considered  final,  were  it 

not  for  the  fact  that  our  ideals  for  present  living  and  our 

conduct  now  are  likely  to  be  inextricably  bound  up  with 

Our  ideals  for     our  couceptiou  of  the  future.    This  is  clearly  the  case 

present   living  '■  •' 

tTth'the  futile  "^^^^  ^-^^  principles  of  Jesus,  and,  if  we  are  to  study  his 
teachings  at  all,  we  must  deal  with  all  of  them,  including 
those  concerning  the  future.  Many  of  his  ideas  on  this 
subject  may  seem  vague  and  uncertain,  especially  as  they 
have  in  many  instances  passed  through  the  medium  of 

134 


JESUS  CONCERNING  THE  FUTURE  I25 

John's  Hellenic  philosophy  (see  p.  21),  but  we  must 
endeavor  to  fathom  them  as  far  as  we  can. 

Jesus  says  but  little  and  furnishes  no  extended  argu- 
ment concerning  the  life  hereafter.  He  seems  generally  J«"3  assumes, 
to  assume  that,  since  men  are  the  sons  of  God,  they  must 
share  in  his  immortality.  In  the  parable  of  the  Rich 
Man  and  Lazarus,  the  beggar  is  depicted  as  resting  on 
Abraham's  bosom,  which  was  a  metaphorical  descrip- 
tion of  a  happy  existence  hereafter  {Lk.  XVI,  19  fif.). 
Similarly,  in  his  account  of  the  Judgment  Day,  those 
who  had  devoted  themselves  to  the  service  of  the  less 
fortimate  are  pictured  as  inheriting  in  the  future  a  king- 
dom prepared  for  them  from  the  beginning  {Mt.  XXV, 
34  ff .) .  His  final  words  to  the  disciples,  too,  assured  them 
of  a  dwelling  place  that  he  was  going  to  prepare  for  them 
m  the  hereafter  {Jn.  XIV,  2).  Likewise  he  promised  the 
repentant  robber  that  he  should  be  with  him  that  day 
in  Paradise  {Lh  XXIII,  43) . 

Sometimes,  however,  Jesus  does  definitely  assert  the  Jjfn^^*^ 
fact  of  a  resurrection  and  a  future  state.  For  example,  *^^  resurrection, 
in  his  confutation  of  the  Sadducees,  who  sought  to  test 
him  through  the  hypothetical  case  of  the  woman  who  had 
married  seven  husbands  {Mk.  XII,  18-27;  ML  XXII, 
23-33;!,^.  XX,  27-40),  he  convicts  them  definitely  from 
their  own  Scriptures  by  saying :  "  As  to  the  dead,  and  the 
fact  that  they  risQ,  have  you  never  read  in  the  Book  of 
Moses,  in  the  passage  about  the  Bush,  how  God  spoke  to 
him  thus  —  *I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of 
Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob '  ?  He  is  not  God  of  dead 
men,  but  of  living.  You  are  greatly  mistaken"  {Mk.  XII, 
26  f.). 


126  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

But  in  every  statement  concerning  the  future  Jesus 
thiigf  Slettied  l^aves  many  things  unsettled,  as  if  they  were  not  essen- 
tial. He  neglects  altogether  the  categories  of  space  and 
time.  He  is  not  concerned  with  the  ordinary  details  as 
to  how  resurrection  takes  place,  and  he  undertakes  no 
real  description  of  the  future  existence.  He  makes  no 
statement  concerning  the  way  in  which  the  soul  is  to  be 
embodied  in  the  hereafter,  though  he  stresses  a  resurrec- 
tion of  persons,  rather  than  bodies,  by  stating  that  the 
resurrection  is  ''from  among  the  dead."  ^ 

It  is  not  altogether  clear,  according  to  Jesus,  whether 
all  men,  or  only  the  righteous,  are  to  be  resurrected.  In 
his  discussion  with  the  Pharisees,  he  maintains  that 
"those  who  are  thought  worthy  to  attain  to  that  other 
world  and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead  ...  are  God's 
sons"  {Lk.  XX,  35  f.).  But  he  speaks  elsewhere  of  the 
''resurrection  of  the  good"  {Lk.  XIV,  14),  as  if  the  bad 
were  also  resurrected,  and  in  John  (V,  29)  it  is  definitely 
stated  that  "those  who  have  done  good  rise  to  life,  and 
those  who  have  lived  evil  lives  rise  for  condemnation." 
It  can  only  be  inferred,  then,  that  Jesus  held  that  aU 
men  would  meet  with  a  resurrection,  but  under  different 
conditions  and  with  varying  results. 

The  Resurrection  is  Both  of  the  Present  and  the 
Future.  —  But  the  apocalyptic  position  is  somewhat 
softened  in  John,  and,  according  to  that  gospel,  Jesus 
represents  the  resurrection  to  be  a  matter  of  the  present, 
as  well  as  of  the  future.  John  wrote  comparatively  late 
(see  p.  21),  and,  when  it  became  obvious  that  the  Coming 
of  Jesus  was  not  to  be  soon,  he  was  inclined  to  feel  that 
1  e/c  T(jl>v  veKpojv, 


JESUS  CONCERNING  THE  FUTURE  1 27 

the  resurrection  might,  in  a  sense,  take  place  now.  For 
example,  Jesus  is  represented  as  saying:  ^'In  truth  I  tell 
you  that  a  time  is  coming,  indeed  it  is  already  here, 
when  the  Dead  will  listen  to  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God, 
and  when  those  who  listen  will  live"  {Jn.  V,  25).  Sim- 
ilarly, when  Martha  concedes  that  her  brother  will  rise 
to  life  "in  the  resurrection  at  the  Last  Day,"  Jesus  adds  The  resurrection 

occurs  now,  as 

at  once:  "I  am  the  Resurrection  and  the  Life.    He  that  j^^^^f  i^  the 
believes  in  me  shall  live,  though  he  die;  and  he  who  lives 
and  believes  in  me  shall  never  die"  {Jn.  XI,  24  f.).    This 
point  of  view  is  not  contradictory  of  that  in  the  synoptic 
gospels,  but  is  supplementary  to  it. 

A  possible  explanation  of  this  apparent  inconsistency 
as  to  the  time  when  the  resurrection  occurs,  might  be  through  moral 

^  renewal  or  a 

that  the  resurrection  of  the  present  may  be  considered  [ee^'°g  of  cer- 
a  moral  renewal  of  life,  or  else  that  it  is  a  feeling  of  cer- 
tainty that  one  will  rise  again  so  strong  that  the  resur- 
rection may  be  said  to  be  virtually  present  already. 
Possibly  we  may  interpret  the  resurrection  of  the  pres- 
ent as  a  combination  of  both  these  ideas.  The  resur- 
rection, as  being  a  conquest  over  death,  may  be  held 
to  transcend  the  time  relation  altogether.  The  believer 
may  be  said,  as  it  were,  from  the  beginning  to  be  vic- 
torious over  death.  The  resurrection  is,  of  course,  also 
asserted  to  take  place  in  the  future,  but  the  teaching  is 
more  comprehensive  than  this  alone,  and  includes  the 
idea  of  a  victory  already  begun.  This  interpretation  of 
John  would  explain  why  Jesus  speaks  almost  exclusivelp 
of  a  resurrection  of  the  "good"  or  "worthy,"  that  is, 
of  those  who  have  even  now  become  triumphant  over 
death.    Jesus  might  thus  further  hold  that  those  who 


tional, 


128  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

refuse  to  believe  will  also  survive,  after  their  actual  death, 
although  we  are  nowhere  definitely  informed  what  the 
conditions  of  their  resurrection  are  to  be. 

The  Judgment.  —  Another  conception  closely  con- 
nected with  the  resurrection  was  that  of  the  Day  of  Judg- 
TOuntf°oT\he"  ment.  This  associated  phenomenon,  which  previously 
HkewTse°trad1-  appeared  in  many  of  the  Jewish  apocalyptic  writings, 
seems  to  have  been  adopted  by  Jesus,  according  to  the 
Synoptists,  especially  Matthew,  with  his  transitional 
emphasis  (see  p.  16).  When  speaking  of  the  return,  this 
evangelist  describes  all  nations  as  coming  before  the  Son  of 
Man,  and  being  separated  by  placing  the  "sheep "on  his 
right  hand  and  the  "goats"  on  his  left.    He  continues: 

"Then  the  King  will  say  to  those  on  the  right  ^Come, 
you  who  are  blessed  by  my  Father,  enter  upon  possession 
of  the  Kingdom  prepared  for  you  ever  since  the  beginning 
of  the  world.  For,  when  I  was  hungry,  you  gave  me 
food;  when  I  was  thirsty,  you  gave  me  drink;  when  I 
was  a  stranger,  you  took  me  to  your  homes;  when  I  was 
naked,  you  clothed  me;  when  I  fell  ill,  you  visited  me; 
and  when  I  was  in  prison,  you  came  to  me.'  Then  the 
Righteous  will  answer '  Lord,  when  did  we  see  you  hungry, 
and  feed  you?  or  thirsty,  and  give  you  drink?  When 
did  we  see  you  a  stranger,  and  take  you  to  our  homes? 
or  naked,  and  clothe  you?  When  did  we  see  you  ill,  or 
in  prison,  and  come  to  you?  '  And  the  King  will  reply, 
*I  tell  you,  as  often  as  you  did  it  to  one  of  these  my 
brothers,  however  lowly,  you  did  it  to  me. ' 

"Then  he  will  say  to  those  on  his  left  *Go  from  my 
presence,  accursed,  into  the  "iEonian  fire  which  has  been 
prepared  for  the  Devil  and  his  angels."    For  when  I  was 


JESUS  CONCERNING  THE  FUTURE  1 29 

hungry,  you  gave  me  no  food;  when  I  was  thirsty,  you 
gave  me  no  drink;  when  I  was  a  stranger,  you  did  not 
take  me  to  your  homes;  when  I  was  naked,  you  did  not 
clothe  me;  and  when  I  was  ill  and  in  prison,  you  did  not 
visit  me.'  Then  they,  in  their  turn,  will  answer  'Lord, 
when  did  we  see  you  hungr}^,  or  thirsty,  or  a  stranger,  or 
naked,  or  ill,  or  in  prison,  and  did  not  supply  your  wants? ' 
And  then  he  will  reply  'I  tell  you,  as  often  as  you  failed 
to  do  it  to  one  of  these,  however  lowly,  you  failed  to  do 
it  to  me.'  And  these  last  will  go  away  'into  ^Eonian 
punishment,'  but  the  righteous  'into  -Ionian  life'"  {ML 
XXV,  33-46).^ 

This  account  of  the  judgment,  however,  must  not  be 
taken  too  literally.  It  should  not  be  supposed  to  afford  ^^^'^^''utet- 
the  sole  standard  by  which  character  is  measured  by  *"^' 
Jesus,  or  to  lay  down  the  only  grounds  upon  which  man 
will  be  rewarded  or  punished.  It  is  simply  an  allegorical 
expression  of  the  principle  of  judgment  in  general,  and 
teaches  how  apparently  insignificant  acts  of  mercy  or 
the  omission  of  them  may  indicate  the  basic  motives 
and  principles  governing  one's  life,  and  thus  enable  the  ^>^ 

Judge  to  decide  to  which  general  class  a  person  belongs. 

Judgments  in  the  Present  and  the  Future. — But,  ac- 
cording to  John  ^  again,  the  "judgment,"  like  the  resur- 

*This  passage  is  clearly  based  upon  the  apocalyptic  book  of 
Enoch  (LXII). 

2  No  such  statements  are  found  in  the  Synoptists,  and  it  is, 
of  course,  doubtful  whether  they  really  form  part  of  Jesus'  teach- 
ing, or  are  the  product  of  John's  eschatology.  Undoubtedly  he 
felt  that,  since  the  parousia  had  not  occurred,  Jesus  must  have 
meant  that  we  are  constantly  being  judged  in  this  life. 


130  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

rection,  would  not  seem  to  be  a  matter  of  the  future 
JonSaUyblSg  2<lone.  It  is  certainly  going  on  now.  Just  as  the  resur- 
made  now.  rection  becomcs  possible  even  in  the  present,  through 
the  assured  feeling  of  attaining  it,  so,  if  we  may  trust 
John,^  present  judgments  are  continually  being  made. 
Passages  to  this  effect  appear  frequently  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  Thus  Jesus  tells  us  definitely:  "Now  this  world 
is  on  its  trial"  (XII,  31).  He  also  defends  his  mission 
by  stating:  "It  was  to  put  men  to  the  te.st  that  I  came 
into  this  world"  (IX,  39).  Elsewhere,  he  says:  "I  judge 
as  I  am  taught;  and  the  judgment  that  I  give  is  just, 
because  my  aim  is  not  to  do  my  own  will,  but  the 
will  of  Him  who  sent  me"  (V,  30).  Similarly  he  de- 
clares later:  "If  I  were  to  judge,  my  judgment  would 
be  trustworthy:  because  I  am  not  alone,  but  the  Father 
that  sent  me  is  with  me"  (VIII,  16).  Hence,  according 
to  John,^  judgments  are  ever  occurring,  since  judgment 
is  inseparable  from  salvation.  And  judgment  may  rea- 
sonably have  been  considered  part  of  the  work  of  Jesus, 
since  men  must  be  divided  into  those  who  believe  and 
those  who  reject  his  truth. 
The  existence  of  these  serial  judgments,  however, 
as  weu  as  in  the  would  not  be  inconsistent  with  there  beins;  a  future 
judgment.  "He  who  rejects  me,  and  disregards  my 
teaching,"  said  Jesus,  "has  a  judge  already  —  the  very 
Message  which  I  have  dehvered  will  itself  be  his  judge 
at  the  Last  Day"  {Jn.  XII,  48).  That  is,  the  constant 
judging  culminates  in  a  future  judgment,  just  as  the 
aggregate  of  entries  on  the  debit  and  credit  columns 
eventually  determine  one's  solvency  or  bankruptcy. 
1  See  note  2,  page  129. 


future. 


JESUS  CONCERNING  THE  FUTURE  I31 

This  future  judgment  represents  a  crisis,  which  is  a  con- 
clusion to  the  continuous  judging  process  that  has  always 
been  going  on  in  each  person's  life.  But  even  this  judg- 
ment may  not  be  final,  since,  as  we  shall  see  (p.  134), 
existence  and  the  moral  life  do  not  necessarily  close  with 
the  change  known  as  "  death. '^ 

Reward  and  Punishment.  —  The  question  of  reward 
and  punishment  also  is  logically  connected  with  that  of  Reward  or  pun- 

^  *■  *_>  ./  ishment  always 

judgment.  It  forms  a  necessary  part  of  all  Jesus'  teach-  ^^5°™^^°'^^ 
ings,  not  only  concerning  the  future,  but  all  other  sub- 
jects. Reward  or  punishment  is  a  verdict  accompanying 
judgment,  and  is  the  consequence  of  reconstruction  or 
of  continued  sin  respectively.  These  features  are  not 
accidental  and  external,  but  they  come  from  God  and 
are  part  and  parcel  of  the  history  of  the  Kingdom  and 
of  the  individual  soul.  Jesus  repeatedly  declared  that 
the  upshot  of  the  judgment  is  reward  or  punishment 
according  to  the  performances  of  the  individual.  "For 
the  Son  of  Man,"  he  said,  "is  to  come  in  his  Father's 
Glory,  and  then  he  will  give  to  every  man  what  his 
actions  deserve"  {ML  XVT,  27).  Elsewhere  Matthew 
is  more  specific,  and  in  detailing  the  sure  reward  that 
awaits  the  good  and  the  definite  punishment  assigned 
to  the  wicked,  he  uses  the  apocalyptic  traditions  and 
terminology  of  the  day.  He  reports  Jesus,  when  explain- 
ing the  Parable  of  the  Tares  {ML  XVIII,  24-30),  as 
saying: 

"The  sower  of  the  good  seed  is  the  Son  of  Man.  The 
field  is  the  world.  By  the  good  seed  is  meant  the  people 
of  the  Kingdom.  The  tares  are  the  wicked,  and  the 
enemy  who  sowed  them  is  the  Devil.    The  harvest  time 


132  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

is  the  close  of  the  age,  and  the  reapers  are  angels.  And, 
just  as  the  tares  are  gathered  and  burnt,  so  will  it  be 
at  the  close  of  the  age.  The  Son  of  Man  will  send  his 
angels,  and  they  will  gather  from  his  Klingdom  all  that 
hinders  and  those  who  live  in  sin,  and  will  Hhrow  them 
into  the  fiery  furnace,'  where  there  will  be  weeping  and 
grinding  of  teeth"  {Mt.  XIII,  37  ff.). 

The  "fiery  furnace"  as  an  instrument  of  punishment 
for  the  wicked,  in  accordance  with  apocalyptic  accoimts, 
is  occasionally  mentioned  elsewhere.  A  well-known  al- 
lusion appears  in  Mark  (IX,  43-46),  where  Jesus  main- 
tains, in  a  discussion  on  sin  and  punishment,  that  one 
would  better  lose  his  hand,  foot,  or  eye  than  to  have  his 
entire  body  cast  into  "  Gehenna. "  But  the  sense  in  which 
the  term  is  there  used  is  apparently  more  metaphorical 
than  literal.  Gehenna  was  the  "unquenchable  fire"  in 
the  valley  of  Hinnom,  just  outside  of  Jerusalem,  which 
was  intended  to  consume  all  the  refuse  of  the  city,  and 
being  burnt  in  it  may  be  figuratively  used  here  to  repre- 
sent the  sufferings  of  those  excluded  from  the  Kingdom 
by  their  unwillingness  to  undergo  the  self -discipline  and 
sacrifice  typified  in  the  extreme  by  the  loss  of  bodily  mem- 
bers. 

So  in  the  case  of  several  statements  concerning  pun- 
ishment and  other  subjects  reported  in  the  gospels,  we 
cannot  be  certain  whether  Jesus  followed  the  pathway  of 
tradition  or  was  only  speaking  figuratively  and  had  a 
traditional  coloring  given  his  sayings  by  the  disciples. 
He  may  well  himself  have  employed  the  current  apoca- 
lyptic language,  though  perhaps  as  the  vehicle  of  a  greater 
truth,  or  his  sayings  may  have  been  somewhat  misimder- 


JESUS  CONCERNING  THE  FUTURE  I33 

Stood  or  distorted.  At  any  rate,  unless  we  do  hold  that 
Jesus  was  entirely  a  product  of  his  times  and  so  take  the 
statements  concerning  the  "fiery  furnace"  literally,  the 
teaching  of  the  Master  stops  with  the  general  principles  ^"f^probabiy^not 
of  reward  and  punishment.  It  is  not  unlikely  that,  as  in  specified, 
all  his  teachings,  he  stands  for  principles,  rather  than 
specific  details.  It  may  well  be  held  that  he  does  not 
weaken  the  practical  operation  of  his  life  ideals  or  of  his 
conception  of  the  Kingdom  by  a  circumstantial  descrip- 
tion of  its  joys,  and  that,  except  for  a  few  general  allu- 
sions and  warnings,  he  was  little  concerned  with  a  de- 
tailed account  of  punishment.  Certainly  much  more  has 
been  said  by  Jesus  concerning  marriage  and  wealth,  for 
example,  than  such  conceptions  as  "heaven"  and 
"hell."  With  him  punishment  seems  to  be  simply  the 
logical  outcome  of  the  abuse  of  a  man's  life.  This  view 
of  Jesus  is  not  out  of  keeping  with  modem  thought. 
A  man  who  habitually  neglects  to  develop  his  funda- 
mental instincts  and  capacities  in  harmony  with  the  high- 
est ideals,  may  become  largely  incapable  of  opening  his 
nature  to  these  influences,  and  so  realizing  his  best  self. 
In  the  terms  of  Jesus,  he  loses  the  capacity  of  becoming 
a  member  of  God's  family,  and  so  is  punished  by  exclu- 
sion from  the  Kingdom,  and  is  "banished  into  the  dark- 
ness outside"  (ML  VIII,  12).  As  the  result  of  neglect  of 
his  duties,  his  social  and  moral  nature  has  so  degener- 
ated that  he  is  unfitted  for  participation  in  and  enjoy- 
ment of  the  ideal  life. 

Nor  is  either  the  punishment  or  reward  to  be  regarded 
as  ^ '  eternal. ' '   The  word  that  has  ordinarily  been  so  trans-  and  they^are^^ 
lated  is  more  properly  rendered,  as  it  is  here  (see  pp.  134  f . 


134  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

and  143),  as  ceonian  or  "of  the  age."  It  means  that  the 
reward  or  punishment  belongs  to  that  great  (boUj  —  the 
age  referred  to  by  apocalyptists,  when  the  Messiah  has 
come  in  triumph  to  judge.  And  life  consists  in  a  series  of 
decisions,  and  of  progress  or  retrogression.  One  never 
stands  still  in  his  moral  and  religious  life,  and  in  the 

since  death  isa^..  .  ^  .  ,,  ^.  ,. 

transition,  and    teachmgs  01  Tesus  no  reward  or  pumsnment  is  necessarily 

the  struggle  still    ^^  1  ,,     i         ,    .     1  .\.    .    ,  ,.  ^     •  1 

goes  on.  *  eternal.      Death  is  but  an  artificial  Ime.    It  is  merely  a 

transition  to  another  state,  and  men  do  not  cease  to  be 
men  because  of  death.  The  life  begun  here  will  continue, 
if  we  believe  in  resurrection  and  immortality,  and  man 
will  in  the  Hfe  to  come  reap  exactly  what  he  has  sown. 
The  consummation  will  not  come  with  death  in  the  form 
of  "eternal"  reward  or  punishment.  Man's  struggles 
and  his  moral  and  religious  life  may  well  continue  here- 
after. 

The  Future  Coming  of  Jesus.  —  The  most  discussed 
phase  of  Jesus'  teaching  concerning  the  future  is  that 
which  appears  in  connection  with  the  accounts  of  his  Ad- 
vent.   All  three  of  the  synoptic  gospels  in  several  places 
dkt  jSflfure  represent  Jesus  as  predicting  that  he  would  suddenly  ap- 
coming,  pg^j.  jj^  power  and  glory  as  the  Messiah.    We  have  seen 

(p.  122)  that  at  the  time  of  Peter's  protest  against  the 
death  of  Jesus,  the  Master  declared  the  need  of  this 
sacrifice,  and  then  stated  prophetically:  "Whoever  is 
ashamed  of  me  and  of  my  teaching  in  this  unfaithful 
and  wicked  generation,  of  him  will  the  Son  of  Man  be 
ashamed,  when  he  comes  in  his  Father's  glory  with  the 
holy  angels  "  {Mk.  VIII,  38;  ML  XVI,  27;  Lh  IX,  26). 
Likewise,  after  predicting  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  to  certain 
disciples,  he  declared :  "Then  will  be  seen  the  *  Son  of  Man 


JESUS  CONCERNING  THE  FUTURE  135 

coming  in  clouds'  with  great  power  and  glory;  and  then 
will  he  send  the  angels,  and  gather  his  people  from  the 
four  winds,  from  one  end  of  the  world  to  the  other"  {Mk. 
XIII,  26  f.;  ML  XXIV,  30  f.;  Lh  XXI,  27  f.).  Again, 
when  the  high  priest  demanded  to  know  whether  Jesus 
claimed  to  be  the  Messiah,  he  replied:  "I  am,  and  you 
shall  all  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of 
the  Almighty;  and  'coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven'" 
{Mh  XIV,  62;  ML  XXVI,  64;  Lh  XXII,  70). 

There  are  many  other  passages  intimating  the  same 
views.  Jesus  clearly  predicted,  according  to  the  gospels, 
that  after  his  resurrection  he  would  appear  in  celestial 
majesty,  to  perfect  the  work  interrupted  by  his  death, 
but  still  to  be  renewed  and  carried  on  through  the  ages 
by  his  spiritual  energy.  This  supreme  manifestation  of 
his  glory  was  to  signalize  the  triumph  of  his  cause  and 
the  complete  establishment  and  consummation  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  It  was  to  be  immediately  preceded  by  H^^^^  ^^ 
many  social  upheavals  and  other  signs,  such  as  the  ap- 
pearance of  pretended  Christs,  "wars  and  the  rumors  of 
wars,"  "famines  and  earthquakes,"  persecutions  and 
tribulations,  and  darkened  sun,  unlighted  moon,  and 
falling  stars  {ML  XXIV,  5,  7,  9,  29  and  Mk,  XIII,  6,  7, 
II  if.,  24  f.). 

But,  despite  these  forewarnings  the  event  was  to  come 
in  a  startling  and  unexpected  manner,  and  was  pictured  in 
lurid  colors.  "As  it  was  in  the  days  of  Noah  {Gen.  VII), 
so  will  it  be  again  in  the  days  of  the  Son  of  Man.    People  and  in  a  sudden 

'-'  •'  '■  and  unexpected, 

were  eating  and  drinking,  marrying  and  being  married, 
up  to  the  very  day  on  which  Noah  entered  the  ark,  and 
then  the  flood  came  and  destroyed  them  all.    So  too,  in 


136 


WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 


but  unmistak- 
able manner, 


although  the 
time  is  uncer- 
tain. 


the  days  of  Lot  {Gen.  XIX),  they  were  eating,  drinking, 
buying,  selling,  planting,  building;  but,  on  the  very  day 
on  which  Lot  came  out  of  Sodom,  it  rained  fire  and  sul- 
phur from  the  skies  and  destroyed  them  all.  It  will  be 
the  same  on  the  day  on  which  the  Son  of  Man  reveals 
himself"  {Lk.  XVII,  26-30).  Similarly,  it  is  likened  to 
the  sudden  return  of  the  bridegroom  in  the  night,  when 
the  bridesmaids  were  unprepared  {Mt.  XXV,  i  ff.),  to 
the  unexpected  arrival  of  the  master  when  the  steward 
is  abusing  his  power  {Lk.  XII,  42  R),  or  even  to  the  robber 
stealing  into  a  house  {Lk.  XII,  39  f.).  Yet,  while  the 
appearance  of  the  Messiah  was  to  come  about  suddenly 
and  unexpectedly,  there  was  to  be  no  doubt  about  it 
when  it  did  come.  "For  just  as  the  lightning  flashes  in 
the  east  and  is  seen  to  the  very  west,  so  will  be  the  Coming 
of  the  Son  of  Man"  {ML  XXIV,  27). 

There  is,  however,  some  difficulty  in  reconciling  two 
types  of  statements  made  by  Jesus  concerning  the  exact 
time  when  this  event  is  to  take  place.  In  certain  passages 
he  indicates  that  it  will  occur  within  the  lifetime  of  the 
existing  generation  {Mk.  IX,  i;  Mt.  X.  23;  XVI,  28; 
XXIV,  34;  Lk.  IX,  27).  But  elsewhere  he  impHes  that 
there  will  be  a  lengthened  period  of  waiting  {Mk.  XIII, 
35 ;  Mt.  XXV,  I  ff. ;  Lk.  XII,  42  ff.),  and  that,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  "about  ^ That  Day '  or  ^ The  Hour,'  no  one  knows 
—  not  even  the  angels  in  Heaven,  nor  yet  the  Son  — 
but  only  the  Father"  {Mk.  XIII,  32;  if/.  XXIV,  36). 

Such  was  the  prediction  concerning  his  Advent  made 
by  Jesus  in  the  s3^optic  gospels.  What  shall  we  say  con- 
cerning the  truth  and  meaning  of  this  miraculous  appear- 
ance?   The  passages  have  been  interpreted  in  various 


JESUS  CONCERNING  THE  FUTURE  137 

ways.  There  are  many  worthy  people  who  maintain  hai^beeAw- 
that  they  are  to  be  taken  in  their  literal  form  and  that  the  p'^^^^  "^^"^^y* 
Coming,  with  all  its  accompanying  wonders  and  glory, 
will  yet  take  place.  They,  of  course,  have  to  minimize 
in  some  way  the  passages  cited  above  that  indicate  that 
Jesus  did  clearly  expect  to  return  during  the  existing 
generation.  But  most  modem  readers  hold  that  the 
message  is  to  be  taken  only  in  a  spiritual  sense.  They 
declare  that  the  disciples  and  evangelists  misinterpreted 
the  statements  of  Jesus  on  this  subject  and  reported  him 
too  literally,  or  even  added  descriptions  from  the  apoc- 
alyptic writings  of  the  times. 

The  people  of  Jesus'  day  had  long  held  to  certain  tra- 
ditions that  had  sprung  up  concerning  the  coming  of 
the  Messiah.  These  apocalyptic  accounts  depicted  the 
glorified  appearance  and  the  striking  physical  phenomena 
and  demonstrations  of  supernatural  power  that  were  to 
accompany  him  and  to  usher  in  the  establishment  of  his 
kingdom  and  rule  over  all  nations  and  peoples.  Hence 
the  modem  psychological  interpretation  has  been  that,  al- 
though the  Kingdom  that  was  to  be  founded  by  Jesus  was 
based  upon  inward  ethical  and  spiritual  changes  in  the 
minds  and  hearts  of  men,  whenever  Jesus  hinted  at  the 
coming  crises  and  triumphs,  even  his  most  sympathetic 
hearers  assumed  that  he  referred  to  these  long-cherished 
apocalyptic  hopes  and  visible  demonstrations  of  power 
and  glory.    In  other  words,  the  traditionalized  followers  o^  as  due  to  a 

*->        "  '  misunderstand- 

of  Jesus  misunderstood  him  and  embodied  their  inter-  ^"g  ^^  ^"^  ^'^ 

•'  ciples, 

pretation  in  phrases  of  the  times  that  the  Master  was 
supposed  to  have  uttered.  Statements  that  did  not  at 
all  refer  to  a  visible  retum  within  the  generation  of  those 


138  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

then  living  were,  as  a  result  of  the  disciples'  preconcep- 
tions, so  understood  and  recorded.  General  expressions 
concerning  the  development  of  the  Kingdom  and  its 
triumphs  over  the  things  of  this  world  were  transformed 
into  definite  predictions  of  the  Messiah's  advent,  with 
all  its  popular  concomitants.  The  traditional  phenomena 
and  displays  of  divine  power  were  thus  blended  in  the 
record  of  the  gospels  with  the  sayings  of  Jesus. 

This  "psychological"  interpretation  is  not  altogether 
convincing.  Such  an  explanation  includes  some  elements 
of  anachronism,  and  seems  to  commit  the  "historical 
fallacy."  It  is  quite  as  likely  that  modernists  have  in- 
vested Jesus  with  their  own  psychology  as  that  the  dis- 
ciples did.  While  the  spiritual  principles  of  Jesus  may  be 
considered  valid  for  all  ages  and  we  are  only  just  begin- 
ning to  perceive  their  significance,  he  must  in  some  degree 
have  been  the  child  of  his  age  and  people.  It  was  in- 
evitable that  he  should  more  or  less  have  taken  over  the 
*'?obIb!ra'do%-  prevailing  views  of  the  future,  and  adopted  the  apocalyp- 
Sias.^^^^^^^**'  tic  eschatology  with  slight  modification.  Some  apoca- 
lyptic ideas  and  phrases  that  he  did  not  use  may  have 
been  attributed  to  him  and  he  probably  read  a  deeper 
meaning  than  was  generally  understood  into  the  apoca- 
lyptic language,  but  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  escha- 
tology attributed  to  him  was  a  complete  interpolation.^ 

*The  latest  great  German  critic,  Schweitzer,  in  his  Secret  of 
the  Messiahship  and  in  his  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus  main- 
tains that  he  has  given  the  coup  de  grdce  to  the  "psycho- 
logical" interpretation,  and  his  ideas  have  largely  been  adapted 
by  a  number  of  modern  theologians  of  various  churches,  —  Tyrell 
(Roman  Catholic),  Sanday  of  Oxford  and  Burkitt  of  Cambridge 


JESUS  CONCERNING  THE  FUTURE  139 

On  this  basis,  too,  the  discrepancy  concerning  the  time 
of  the  Advent  may  reasonably  be  explained.  Jesus 
probably  took  into  account  the  gradual  evolution  of 
human  ajffairs  in  contemplating  the  triumph  of  his  King- 
dom. He  seems  often  to  have  realized  that  it  might  be 
long  delayed,  and  he  even  declared  that  the  hour  was 
known  only  to  God.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Old  Testa- 
ment prophecy  and  the  inner  consciousness  of  his  Messiah- 
ship  imbued  him  with  a  faith  in  his  triumph  so  real  and 
assured  and  a  vision  of  it  so  clear  that  at  times  it  seemed 
to  him  already  imminent. 

And  even  if  we  hold  that  Jesus  expected  the  literal 
fulfillment  of  all  these  Messianic  phenomena  and  that 
this  was  altogether  a  mistake  and  an  illusion,  it  does  not 
discount  his  real  greatness  nor  the  validity  of  his  message. 
Moreover,  the  account  of  the  astounding  Appearance  is 
scarcely  more  wonderful  than  the  sublime  confidence  of 
Jesus  that  a  small  group  of  devoted  followers,  imbued 
with  his  own  spirit,  could  leaven  the  whole  world  and 
become  the  nucleus  of  a  great  society  with  increasing  ^oie^^oJd^grfS 
expansion  and  infinite  possibilities  for  humanity.  His  JJ^^ph.^^"^''"*^ 
widespread  spiritual  rule,  which  has  come  about  through 

(Anglican),  Scott  (Presbyterian),  Moffatt  (United  Free  Church, 
Presbyterian),  etc.  Schweitzer  makes  Jesus  and  his  eschatology 
practically  a  product  of  the  apocalyptic  times  into  which  he  was 
born,  but  grants  a  certain  amount  of  plausibility  to  the  hy- 
pothesis of  Wrede  {The  Messianic  Secret),  —  that  the  apocalyptic 
element  was  interpolated  by  Mark.  "The  historical  Jesus,  of 
whom  the  criticism  of  the  future  will  draw  the  portrait,"  says  he, 
"will  be  a  Jesus,  who  was  Messiah,  and  Hved  as  such,  either  on 
the  ground  of  a  literary  fiction  of  the  earliest  Evangelist  or  on 
the  ground  of  a  purely  eschatological  Messianic  conception." 


I40  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

the  gradual  acceptance  of  his  principles  and  the  recon- 
struction of  human  living,  while  quite  in  accordance 
with  all  natural  law,  has  been,  if  anything,  more  remark- 
able than  a  supernatural  return  in  the  flesh  and  the 
miraculous  establishment  of  a  world  empire. 

Summary.  —  Jesus  both  assumes  and  asserts  a  "res- 
urrection," but  he  leaves  the  details  unsettled.  Resur- 
rection may  be  said  to  occur  in  the  present,  as  well  as  in 
the  future,  through  a  moral  inspiration  or  feeling  of 
certainty  that  one  will  rise  again.  Jesus  also  asserts  the 
principle  of  "judgment,"  but  his  description  must  not  be 
taken  as  laying  down  the  sole  grounds  upon  which  men 
are  rewarded  or  punished.  Judgments  are  constantly 
being  made,  since  they  are  inseparable  from  salvation, 
but  there  is  also  a  judgment  of  the  future.  The  gospel 
description  of  "reward"  and  "punishment"  must  be 
considered  as  figurative,  and  neither  one  can  be  taken 
as  '^  eternal."  A  most  difficult  phase  of  Jesus'  teaching 
concerning  the  future  is  that  connected  with  his  future 
coming  in  power  and  glory,  which  the  gospels  represent 
him  as  prophesying.  In  this  Jesus  adapted  the  apocalyp- 
tic ideas  of  the  times,  but  these  were  scarcely  more  won- 
derful than  his  spiritual  triumph. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  READING 

Charles,  R.  H.    Critical  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  a  Future  Life. 

Charles,  R.  H.  Religious  Development  between  the  New  and  Old 
Testaments. 

MoFFATT,  James.     The  Theology  of  the  Gospels.    Chapter  II. 

Penniman,  Joslah  H.  A  Book  about  the  English  Bible.  Chap- 
ter XV. 


JESUS  CONCERNING  THE  FUTURE  14I 

Rhees,  Rush.  The  Life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  Part  II,  Chap- 
ter IX;  Part  III,  Chapter  III. 

Schweitzer,  A.  The  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus.  Chapters 
XVIII-XX. 

Scott,  E.  F.  The  Kingdom  and  the  Messiah.  Chapters  II  and 
VIII. 

Selwyn,  E.  G.     The  Teaching  of  Christ.    Chapter  V. 

Stevens,  G.  B.    The  Teaching  of  Jesus.    Chapters  XIV  and  XV. 


dom  of  Heaven 


CHAPTER  VIII 

JESUS'   TEACHING   CONCERNING  THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE 

CHURCH 

The  Expectation  of  a  Restored  Kingdom  in  the 
Apocalyptic  Writings.  —  The  discussion  in  the  last  chap- 
ter concerning  the  future  reveals  more  fully  than  any 
that  has  preceded  the  focal  point  in  the  teachings 
of  Jesus.  To  a  large  extent  all  the  other  instruction 
feof S^King-  centers  in  his  conception  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven, 
which  was  adapted  from  the  apocalyptic  traditions  of 
the  times.  His  idea  of  God  and  man,  his  conception 
of  life  and  its  reconstruction,  and  his  teaching  concern- 
ing the  resurrection,  judgment,  and  future  coming  may 
all,  in  a  sense,  be  said  to  grow  out  of  his  idea  of  the 
divine  community,  and  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  in 
power  and  glory.  While  these  by-products  are  of  the 
greatest  importance  and  constitute  his  permanent 
message,  the  Master  was  primarily  concerned  in  the 
coming  of  the  Kingdom,  where  the  will  of  God  is  to  be 
accepted  by  his  sons,  and  Jesus,  as  his  vicegerent,  is  to 
admit  men  to  citizenship  or  reject  them,  according  as 
they  have,  or  have  not,  been  prepared  to  enter  by  means 
of  penitence,  prayer,  and  righteousness. 

This  complex  of  conceptions  contained  various  factors, 
but  probably  presented  itself  to  Jesus  as  a  whole  and 

was  subsumed  under  a  single  name,  —  the  Kingdom 

14a 


THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE   CHURCH  143 

of  God.  And,  as  it  has  several  times  been  hinted,  we  fjjfjjij^^^ 
must  go  back  to  the  Jewish  Scriptures  for  its  explana-  '^^• 
tion.  The  idea  had  been  a  contmuous  and  lasting 
element  in  the  religion  of  the  Jewish  people  up  to  the 
time  of  Jesus,  and  was  effectively  used  by  him  as  a  means 
of  conveying  his  message.  The  Jews  had  for  centuries  Sed^a^resTom?" 
looked  forward  with  longing  and  confidence  to  a  Golden  vSlctbgdomT 
Age  when  God's  rule  should  be  complete,  and,  under 
the  leadership  of  a  Messiah,  they  should  return  to  their 
pristine  powe?:  and  glory.  Amid  religious  and  moral 
crises  and  the  oppression  inflicted  by  various  dominating 
people^,  they  continued  to  expect  a  restoration  of  the 
days  of  the  Davidic  kingdom,  when  Israel  had  been 
prosperous  and  famous.  These  ideas  appear  in  such 
prophets  as  Daniel  and  Zechariah  and  iQ  the  apocalyp- 
tic books  called  Esdras,  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  and 
the  Assumption  of  Isaiah,  and  are  elaborated  in  the 
apocalypses  of  Enoch,  Baruch,  Noah,  and  many  other 
recently  discovered  books.  They  are  characterized  by 
figurative  and  symbolic  language,  and  contain  predic- 
tions concerning  the  final  issue  in  human  history  in  the 
form  of  an  "apocalypse"  or  revelation. 

As  time  went  on,  the  apocalyptic  conceptions  became 
more  and  more  heightened.  It  was  definitely  prophe-  with  a  variety  of 
sied  that  the  reign  of  renewed  prosperity  was  to  be 
inaugurated  by  a  popular  uprising  against  the  dominant 
Roman  power,  and  that  the  movement,  as  we  have  seen, 
was  to  be  preceded  by  various  phenomena.  A  total 
eclipse  of  the  sun  was  to  occur  and  the  stars  were  to 
fall  from  their  elements,  and  there  were  to  be  universal 
wars  and  anarchy.    The  Messiah  was  to  have  a  fore- 


144  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

runner,  to  turn  the  hearts  of  the  people,  and  Antichrist 
was  to  be  overthrown.  The  endless  Kingdom  was  to 
be  ushered  in  with  a  judgment,  over  which  the  Messiah 
presided,  and  to  be  enjoyed  by  the  righteous  in  a  new 
heaven  and  a  new  earth.  Those  found  wanting  at  the 
judgment  were  to  be  rejected  from  the  Kingdom,  and 
burnt  or  tortured  in  a  special  part  of  Sheol.  Provision 
was  made  for  the  dead  in  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection, 
although  it  is  difficult  to  say  whether  all,  or  only  the 
good,  were  expected  to  rise. 

The  Interpretation  as  Adapted  by  Jesus. —  There 
were  naturally  wide  differences  in  detail  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  Kingdom  and  the  personality  of  the  Messiah, 
although  the  apocalyptic  writings  agreed  in  most  es- 
sentials. While  the  new  monarchy  was  generally  re- 
garded as  earthly  in  location  and  character,  its  heavenly 
origin  was  never  forgotten.  Sometimes  the  Almighty 
was  depicted  as  the  king,  and  sometimes  the  Messiah 
was  so  regarded;  occasionally  the  latter  served  as  the 
vicegerent  of  the  former.  The  Kingdom  itself  was 
variously  regarded  as  (i)  the  sequel  of  a  political 
revolution,  in  which  God  would  enable  the  oppressed 
to  release  themselves;  (2)  the  result  of  divine  action 
alone,  in  which  humanity  had  no  part  except  to  keep 
the  Law;  or  (3)  the  outcome  of  a  religious  movement 
of  the  people,  rather  than  a  political  upheaval.  Elements 
of  all  three  interpretations  appear  in  various  parts  of 
the  gospels,  and  were  more  or  less  adopted  or  adapted 
by  Jesus.  But  while  he  was  somewhat  a  product  of 
his  times  and  seems  to  have  been  influenced  by  the 
apocalyptic    atmosphere,    descriptions,    and    language 


THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CHURCH  145 

(see  p.  137),  he  leans  toward  the  third  of  these  inter- 
pretations and  is  inclined  always  to  regard  the  King- 
dom as  a  spiritual  one.  This  his  hearers  often  found 
it  difficult  to  understand.  The  constant  tendency  of  jesus^^^al^mis- 
even  his  disciples  was  to  conceive  of  the  Kingdom  as 
a  great  political  creation.  Hence,  we  find  such  incidents 
as  the  request  of  John  and  James,  or  their  mother,  that 
these  apostles  stand  first  in  the  monarchy,  or  the  last 
inquiry  of  the  disciples:  "Master,  is  this  the  time  when 
you  mtend  to  reestablish  the  Kingdom  for  Israel?" 
{Acts  I,  6). 

It  must,  therefore,  have  been  a  disappointment  to 
his  disciples  when  Jesus  founded  no  party,  led  no 
popular  uprising,  and  made  no  use  of  the  sword. 
They  could  scarcely  conceive  of  a  victory  attained 
through  humility,  sacrifice,  and  service.  The  import 
of  such  a  Kingdom  of  God  was  slow  in  dawning  upon 
them,  and  required  much  patient  teaching  concerning 
its  applications  in  a  variety  of  directions  that  we  have 
discussed  in  the  foregoing  chapters.  According  to  the  j-oS'o/the'KFng- 
view  of  Jesus,  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom  meant  for  the  **°"- 
most  part  a  relief  from  spiritual,  rather  than  political, 
slavery.  Man's  nature  had  been  corrupted  by  sin,  but 
it  was  possible  for  him  to  recover  his  membership  in 
the  divine  community  through  repentance.  The  coming 
of  this  spiritual  polity  and  the  deliverance  of  man 
through  God,  he  came  to  proclaim  as  the  "gospel"  or 
Good  News. 

The  Relation  of  the  Church  to  the  Kingdom. — 
Apparently  Jesus  conceived  of  the  complete  realization 
of  the  Kingdom  as  occurring  some  time  in  the  future. 


146 


WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 


The  Kingdon 
was  foreshad- 
owed by  the 
brotherhood 


that  he  sought 
to  organize, 


But  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  also  considered  by  him 
to  be  "at  hand"  in  the  incipient  community  or  brother- 
hood, which  foreshadowed  that  which  was  to  come.  In 
other  words,  the  ecclesia  or  "congregation"  was  regarded 
as  a  species  of  proleptic  Kingdom.  In  order  to  build 
up  a  community  that  should  inherit  this  coming  Kling- 
dom,  Jesus  gathered  around  him  a  group  of  followers 
and  strove  to  instruct  them  in  his  conception  of  God 
and  the  higher  law  and  to  produce  in  them  a  radical 
change  of  will.  He  believed  that  by  bringing  them  into 
the  right  fellowship  with  God,  he  would  cause  them  to 
conform  to  the  conditions  that  were  soon  to  prevail. 
He  intended  to  have  them  form  the  nucleus  of  the  new 
people  that  God  would  set  apart  for  himself  after  his 
Judgment.  They  could  thus  avail  themselves  of  the 
powers  and  privileges  of  the  Kingdom,  and  become  at 
once  the  children  of  the  new  age.  In  his  conception 
of  the  Kingdom,  then,  the  present  and  future  were 
somewhat  blended;  it  seemed  to  him  so  near  that  the 
approach  of  it  could  already  be  felt. 

Hence,  while  the  Kingdom  was  yet  in  the  future, 
Jesus  desired  that  there  should  be  called  into  existence 
a  group  which  had  broken  from  the  existing  order  and 
should  seek  to  identify  itself  with  that  to  come.  He, 
accordingly,  brought  the  twelve  into  a  species  of  per- 
manent relationship  with  himself  as  his  associates  and 
messengers,  and  thus  the  nucleus  of  an  organization 
was  formed.  At  that  time  a  common  life  and  fellow- 
ship were  established,  with  simple  rites  of  initiation  and 
membership  taken  over  from  contemporary  apocalyptic 
thought,  such  as  baptism  (ilf^.  I,  4,  etc.)  and  the  Mes- 


THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CHURCH  147 

sianic  banquet  (Mk.  XIV,  22  ff.)-    This,  however,  is  not 
to  say  that  Jesus  expected  his  brotherhood  to  be  a  for- 
mally organized  institution  with  authoritative  officials, 
set  laws,  a  creed,  and  ceremonial,  such  as  is  generally 
indicated  by  the  word  "Church''  to-day.    He  was  little  fu?;fconce7n?d 
concerned  with  founding  a  religious  institution.     His  Stutlon.^"^* 
chief  interest  was  not  in  a  Church,  but  a  Kingdom.    He 
seldom  spoke  about  organization  and  left  behind  no 
fixed  ritual,  although  he  used  baptism,  which  he  had 
inherited  from  Judaism,  as  the  symbol  of  moral  regen- 
eration and  a  sign  of  admission  to  the  Messianic  com- 
munity.   He  himself  formulated  no  code  of  rules,  but 
simply  described  the  spirit  of  Christian  life,  which  his 
disciples  were  expected  to  learn  and  follow.    The  prin- 
ciples he  taught  were  to  be  used  only  as  a  guide  in  the 
case  of  a  quarrel,  difference  of  opinion,  or  actual  injury. 
For  the  procedure  to  be  used  in  disputes,  however, 
Jesus  did  outline  this  policy:  "If  your  brother  does 
wrong,  go  to  him  and  convince  him  of  his  fault  when 
you  and  he  are  alone.    If  he  listens  to  you,  you  have  won 
your  brother.    But,  if  he  does  not  listen  to  you,  take 
with  you  one  or  two  others,  so  that  'on  the  evidence  of 
two  or  three  witnesses,  every  word  may  be  put  beyond  dis- 
pute.' If  he  refuses  to  listen  to  them,  speak  to  the  Church; 
and,  if  he  also  refuses  to  listen  to  the  Church,  treat  him 
as  you  would  a  Gentile  or  a  taxgatherer"  {ML  XVIII, 
15  ff.).    Then  he  added:  "I  tell  you,  all  that  you  forbid 
on  earth  will  be  held  in  Heaven  to  be  forbidden,  and  all 
that  you  allow  on  earth  will  be  held  in  Heaven  to  be 
allowed.    Again,  I  tell  you  that,  if  but  two  of  you  on 
earth  agree  as  to  what  they  shall  pray  for,  whatever  it  be, 


148  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

it  will  be  granted  them  by  my  Father  who  is  in  Heaven. 
For  where  two  or  three  have  come  together  in  my  Name, 
I  am  present  with  them"  {ML  XVIII,  18  ff.)- 

The  Basis  of  the  Petrine  Theory.  —  This  apparently 
is  as  far  as  Jesus  goes  anywhere  in  prescribing  the  by- 
laws or  the  government  of  the  congregation  he  wished  to 
establish.  And  this  seems  to  be  decidedly  elastic  and 
democratic  in  its  form.  It  includes  no  codified  canons 
and  no  definite  officials  and  hierarchy  such  as  were  after- 
ward evolved  in  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church. 
ft™was  IvenThe  ^^  ^^  iutcrcsting  also  to  note  that,  in  the  passage  usually 
disdpies  as  a  qiIq^  to  Substantiate  the  claim  that  Peter  was  given  a 
special  recognition  and  supremacy  over  the  other  dis- 
ciples as  Christ's  vicegerent  upon  earth,  exactly  the 
words  used  in  the  passage  above  for  *' forbid"  and 
"allow"  ^  are  employed  by  Jesus.  The  complete  text 
upon  which  this  "Petrine  theory"  is  largely  based  reads 
as  follows :  "Yes,  and  I  say  to  you.  Your  name  is  ^  Peter ' — 
a  Rock,  and  on  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church  (or 
Congregation),  and  the  Powers  of  the  Place  of  Death  ^ 
shall  not  prevail  over  it.  I  will  give  you  the  keys  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven.  Whatever  you  forbid  on  earth 
will  be  held  in  Heaven  to  be  forbidden,  whatever  you 
allow  on  earth  will  be  held  in  Heaven  to  be  allowed" 
{ML  XVI,  18  f.). 
with  that  These  words  were  directed  to  Peter,  in  the  presence 

granted  to  ^ 


eter, 


1  he(0  and  Xvoy-^  in  the  King  James  Version  and  elsewhere  they 
are  translated  literally  "bind"  and  "loose." 

2  Usually  translated  "Hell,"  or  better,  "Hades,"  but  used  not 
in  the  sense  of  a  place  of  punishment,  but  with  the  Greek  signifi- 
cance of  the  abode  of  all  the  dead. 


Peter. 


THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CHURCH  149 

of  the  disciples,  just  after  that  impulsive  follower,  in 
response  to  a  question  asked  by  Jesus  of  them  all,  had 
made  clear  recognition  of  him  as  the  Messiah.  Jesus, 
then,  being  pleased  that  his  mission  had  become  so  re- 
vealed in  his  life,  took  Peter  as  an  index  of  the  little 
group  of  the  ''faithful,"  and  in  a  pun  declared  that  he  had 
proven  himself  the  hed  rock  upon  which  the  congregation 
was  to  be  founded,  —  the  pattern  disciple  after  whom 
were  to  be  modeled  the  members  of  the  brotherhood 
that  was  to  unlock  the  doors  to  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 

But,  however  we  interpret  this  passage,  there  is  no  ^nd  the  other 

'  ^  i.  o    J  disciples    never 

indication  that  Peter  was  ever  given  any  official  recog-  cidauthority^S 
nition  or  special  authority  by  the  disciples  themselves. 
He  was  simply  a  natural  leader  in  a  company  of  equals 
and  a  sort  of  spokesman  in  the  democratic  group.  The 
same  interpretation  is  probably  also  to  be  made  of  the 
two  other  passages  {Lk.  XXII,  31  f.,  and  Jn.  XXI,  15  ff.) 
in  which  Peter  seems  to  be  given  a  special  commission. 
And  no  greater  significance  need  be  attached  to  the  fact 
that  his  name  always  appears  first  in  every  list  of  the 
apostles  {Mk.  Ill,  16;  Mt.  X,  2;  Lk.  VI,  14;  Acts  I,  13), 
or  that  throughout  Acts  Peter  is  obviously  the  spokes- 
man and  leader  of  the  group.  James,  rather  than  Peter, 
presided  at  the  Council  in  Jerusalem,  when  Paul  and 
Barnabas  disputed  with  the  Judaizing  Christians,  who 
wished  to  insist  upon  the  rite  of  circumcision  {Acts  XV, 
13  ff.).  Again,  Peter  was  freely  criticised  by  the  other 
disciples,  whenever  they  thought  him  in  the  wrong.  A 
typical  instance  of  this  was  the  occasion  when  he  was 
attacked  on  the  ground  that  he  had  eaten  with  the 
uncircumcised,  and  in  defense  related  his  vision  at  Joppa 


150  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

{Acts  XI,  2  ff.)-  Similarly,  Paul  exhibited  the  vacillating 
nature  of  Peter  and  his  own  promptness  in  pointing  out 
his  inconsistency.  "When  Peter  came  to  Antioch/'  said 
he,  "I  opposed  him  to  his  face;  for  he  stood  self-con- 
demned. Before  certain  persons  came  from  James,  he 
had  been  in  the  habit  of  eating  with  Gentile  converts; 
but  when  they  came,  he  began  to  withdraw  and  hold 
aloof,  for  fear  of  offending  those  who  still  held  to  cir- 
cumcision. ...  I  said  to  Peter  before  them  all,  'if  you, 
who  were  born  a  Jew,  adopt  Gentile  customs,  instead 
of  Jewish,  why  are  you  trying  to  compel  the  Gentile 
converts  to  adopt  Jewish  customs?'"  (GaL  II,  11  ff.). 
Certainly  Paul  and  the  other  disciples  do  not  seem  to 
have  heard  anything  of  Peter's  vicegerency  or  of  any 
infallibility  in  his  judgment. 

The  Nature  and  Importance  of  the  Church.  —  This 
whole  question  of  the  organization  and  the  proper  govern- 
ment of  the  Church,  however,  is  a  matter  that  has  been 
much  mooted.    Not  only  do  the  two  grand  divisions  of 
Christianity,  popularly  known  as  "Catholic"  and  " Prot- 
estant," radically  differ  upon  the  matters  involved,  but 
the  various   Protestant  denominations,  and,  to  some 
extent,  the  Catholic  orders,  are  not  altogether  a  unit. 
But  this  would  seem  to  be  a  matter  of  relatively  minor 
importance,  and  one  upon  which  every  person  may  de- 
cide according  to  the  evidence  and  the  dictates  of  his 
own  conscience.    The  fact  remains,  whether  or  not  Jesus 
dlay^blen  a?  anticipated  all  the  officials  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church 
Snot  a°cd'     to-day  in  forming  his  small  brotherhood,  that  the  in- 
lection,  stitution  began  not  as  a  collection  of  persons,  but  as  a 

group.    The  idea  of  a  redeemed  commimity  was  funda- 


THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CHURCH  151 

mental  in  early  Christian  thought.  People  were  to  In- 
herit the  Kingdom  not  as  a  mass  of  separate  individuals, 
who  had  been  won  to  the  principles  of  Jesus,  but  as  com- 
mon parts  of  an  organic  whole,  bound  by  the  unity  of  a 
single  purpose.  In  order  to  participate  in  the  new  life, 
one  must  become  a  member  of  the  body,  and  the  in- 
dividual apart  from  the  entire  community  was  as  naught. 
Jesus  himself  organized  this  brotherhood  of  the  future, 
and  afterward  his  disciples  clung  tenaciously  to  the  idea. 
They  insisted  that  their  powers  and  privileges  belonged 
to  them  as  a  body  and  that  the  individual  could  receive 
them  only  in  so  far  as  he  was  a  member  of  that  body. 
It  may  well  be  that  in  the  course  of  time  this  idea  has 
become  somewhat  set  and  formal.  The  divine  commu- 
nity may  have  crystallized  into  a  social  institution  or-  JS^^s*^'nstitS-*' 
ganized  and  administered  like  any  other,  and  the  early  t'o^^iized. 
Christian  teaching  may  have  been  somewhat  perverted 
and  degenerated  into  the  dogmatic  attitude  that  there 
can  be  no  salvation  outside  of  this  privileged  institution. 
And  it  is  clear  that  the  Church  can  never  exactly  repre- 
sent the  Kingdom,  since  there  may  be  many  outside 
the  Church  and  not  formally  connected  with  it  that  are 
to  be  accounted  among  the  "faithful,"  and  among  those 
of  the  professing  may  be  hypocrites  or  inconstant  mem- 
bers, who  are  not  really  part  of  the  Kingdom.  But  in 
the  beginning  the  Christian  faith  was  rightly  identified 
with  a  conununity  into  which  men  had  to  be  admitted 
before  they  could  participate  in  the  Kingdom,  and  the 
Church  is  now  organically  a  natural  development  from 
the  Messianic  Kingdom  proclaimed  by  Jesus. 
Moreover,  some  such  social  organization  was  needed 


152  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

t?on  h°a? Sen'  ^^  pcrpctuate  thc  principles  of  the  Master.  To  bring 
most  effective.  ^\)q^i  the  dissemination  of  new  truths  and  methods  of 
living,  we  must  take  advantage  of  the  deep-lying  social  in- 
stinct in  humanity.  If  a  religious  point  of  view  is  to 
prevail,  it  has  to  find  social  expression,  and  to  lead  out 
into  common  sympathies  and  activities.  ^'  No  man  liveth 
to  himself  alone."  Certainly  the  way  in  which  the  Church 
has  extended  out  of  its  primitive  beginnings  in  a  remote 
Roman  province  into  a  great  world  religion,  without 
either  outward  revolution  or  popular  excitement,  and 
with  the  complete  transformation  of  thought,  viewpoint, 
morals,  and  activities  it  has  occasioned,  and  the  great 
persistence  and  perpetuity  it  has  exhibited,  surviving  all 
the  states  and  nations  in  existence  at  its  foundation, 
have  fully  justified  its  formation  and  whatever  evolution 
that  has  taken  place.  The  Church  is  to-day,  as  it  has 
been  for  centuries,  both  the  chief  form  of  social  contact 
among  those  already  endeavoring  to  incorporate  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  in  their  lives,  and  the  most  active 
means  of  winning  over  those  outside  of  the  Kingdom  to 
efforts  toward  salvation  and  the  reconstructed  life.  It 
is  most  universal  and  effective,  and  until  late  years  about 
the  only  force  that  has  been  systematically  exerted  in  the 
regeneration  of  society. 

Summary.  —  All  the  teaching  of  Jesus  centers  around 
his  conception  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  which  goes 
back  to  various  apocalyptic  writings  of  the  Jews.  Jesus 
tended  toward  a  spiritual  interpretation  of  the  Kingdom, 
which  was  much  misunderstood.  He  regarded  the  coming 
of  the  Kingdom  as  future  and  present,  but  held  that  it 
was  to  be  foreshadowed  by  an  earthly  commimity,  for 


THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CHURCH  1 53 

which  he  arranged  common  bonds  of  fellowship.  He 
does  not,  however,  seem  to  have  instituted  authoritative 
officials  or  ceremonial,  although  he  outlined  a  procedure 
for  cases  of  dispute.  Peter  was  apparently  a  natural 
leader,  but  he  does  not  seem  to  be  recognized  as  the 
vicegerent  of  Jesus  by  the  other  disciples.  The  Church 
has  never  been  considered  a  collection  of  individuals,  but 
an  organic  group,  and,  although  at  times  it  has  been  over- 
institutionalized,  it  has  harmonized  with  the  social 
instincts  of  humanity,  and  has  been  a  most  efficient  means 
of  developing  Christianity  and  regenerating  society. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  READING. 

Jenks,  Jeremiah  W.  Social  Significance  of  the  Teaching  of  Jesus. 
Study  III. 

Mathews,  Shailer.    Message  of  Jesus.    Study  VIII. 

Mathews,  S.    Social  and  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus.    Study  III. 

Rauschenbusch,  W.  Christianity  and  the  Social  Crisis.  Chap- 
ter II. 

Rauschenbusch,  W.  Social  Principles  of  Jesus.  Part  II, 
Chapters  IV  and  V. 

ScoTT,  E.  F.  The  Beginnings  of  the  Church.  Especially  Lectures 
I,  VI,  and  X. 

Scott,  E.  F.  The  Kingdom  and  the  Messiah.  Chapters  I,  and 
IV-VI. 

Selwyn,  E.  G.     The  Teaching  of  Christ.     Chapters  I-IV  and  VI. 

Stevens,  G.  B.     The  Teaching  oj  Jesus.    Chapters  V  and  XIII. 


CHAPTER  rX 

JESUS  AND  MODERN  SOCIETY 

Jesus  Uttered  Principles  Rather  than  Precepts.  —  The 

question  is  often  asked  whether  Christianity  is  practicable 
to-day.  With  the  passage  of  these  many  centuries,  and 
the  tremendous  changes  in  social,  political,  and  economic 
conditions,  can  a  point  of  view  formulated  in  a  remote 
comer  of  the  Roman  world  still  obtain  in  modem  society? 
Do  Jesus'  teach-  Do  the  principlcs  of  the  fatherhood  of  Gk)d,  the  brother- 
piScnt  wciety?  hood  of  man,  "love'^  or  friendship,  service,  and  "salva- 
tion '^  or  reconstmction,  any  longer  have  a  bearing  upon 
hmnan  life  and  conduct?  Does  "the  Kingdom  of  God" 
yet  endure,  and  is  the  "congregation''  started  by  Jesus 
still  an  active  force  in  the  regeneration  of  humanity?  Do 
the  teachings  of  Jesus  have  any  message  for  us,  and  if  so, 
what  is  it? 

If  we  expect  to  find  direct  legislation  on  social  problems 
and  specific  reforms  in  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  we  are 
doomed  to  disappointment.  Very  little  in  the  way  of 
explicit  social  teaching  appears  in  the  gospels.  Jesus  was, 
in  general,  not  concerned  with  the  type  of  injunctions  laid 
down  under  the  Mosaic  Law,  or  even  with  the  applica- 
tions of  his  principles  made  for  the  early  Christian  groups 
by  his  great  disciple,  Paul.  The  gospels  and  the  early 
part  of  Acts,  in  which  Jesus'  real  principles  and  social 
teaching  are  discovered,  differ  from  the  Pentatetu^h  and 

X54 


JESUS  AND  MODERN  SOCIETY  1 55 

the  Epistles  in  about  the  same  way  that  a  constitution 
does  from  legislative  statutes.    Jesus  formulated  prin- 
ciples rather  than  precepts.   He  did  not  attempt  to  set  up  Jesus  feit  that 
laws  and  make  everythmg  on  one  side  of  the  line  right  ^\^^'  ^ut  prin- 

,  ,  ,  °  ciples  are  eternal. 

and  on  the  other  side  wrong.  His  chief  work  was  the 
elaboration  of  ideals  and  the  description  of  how  spiritual 
powers  might  be  realized.  He  seems  to  have  felt  that 
rules  are  temporary,  but  that  principles  are  eternal.  Nor 
did  he  confine  himself  to  social  and  economic  reforms. 
It  was  his  mission  to  reveal  and  inspire.  A  reformer 
works  for  a  single  age ;  a  revealer  is  for  all  time.  The  mind 
of  Jesus  was  raised  above  the  social  issues  of  the  times, 
and  thus  his  outlook  was  wider  and  his  insight  deeper. 
He  surveyed  the  social  struggle  from  above.  He  viewed 
it  as  an  incident,  as  it  were,  in  the  campaign  of  God. 
Hence  his  views  of  society  as  it  is  are  infrequent,  and  his 
chief  interest  is  in  what  it  may  become. 

But  this  absence  of  rules  and  detailed  directions  in  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  did  not  come  about  because  there  was 
no  need  of  reforms  in  the  Roman  Empire  of  his  day. 
Political  oppression  and  social  abuses  were  at  that  time  Hence  he  did  not 

,,  ^     ,  111  !/•  concern    himself 

rampant  and  overt  m  a  way  seldom  known  before  or  with  abuses  of 

the  day. 

since.  The  reason  why  the  Master  did  not  concern  him- 
self with  these  crying  problems  of  the  times,  was  simply 
because  his  attention  was  fixed  upon  the  means  by  which 
all  social  questions  might  find  their  own  solution.  He 
would  not  limit  the  scope  and  duration  of  his  work  by 
uttering  a  series  of  moral  precepts  adapted  to  the  age 
and  the  existing  social  situation  alone.  The  ''new 
birth ''  was  more  than  a  new  subjection  to  law.  His  prin- 
ciples penetrate  to  the  springs  of  conduct,  to  the  inner 


156  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

spirit,  and  the  secret  determinations  of  man,  and  he  felt 
that  the  moral  force  thereby  generated  could  be  trusted 
to  work  out  specific  reforms  in  every  age  and  under  all 
circumstances. 

The  Social  Teachings  of  Jesus  Are  Incidental,  and 
Often  Seem  Contradictory.  —  Hence  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  upon  various  social  problems  is  fragmentary  and 
isolated.  His  treatment  of  reforms  comes  about  in  a 
purely  occasional  and  incidental  fashion,  and  he  seldom 
He  turned  from  evcu  approaches  the  making  of  a  code  or  system.   When- 

a  problem  to  the  ^^  ^  °  •'  ,  , 

principles  un-     ever  hc  met  with  a  problem,  he  turned  from  its  direct 

denying  it.  ^  ^  .       . 

consideration  to  the  principles  underlying  it.  He  dealt 
with  it  as  a  physician  does  with  symptoms.  For  example, 
in  the  case  of  the  man  who  wanted  Jesus  to  compel  his 
brother  to  share  the  property  with  him,  the  Master 
refused  to  intervene,  but  added,  probing  the  real  seat 
of  the  difficulty:  "Take  care  to  keep  yourself  free  from 
every  form  of  covetousness;  for  even  in  the  height  of  his 
prosperity  a  man's  true  Life  does  not  depend  on  what  he 
has"  {LL  Xn,  15). 

The  social  teachings  of  Jesus,  then,  seem  to  be  usually 

a  species  of  by-product  or  illustration  of  his  principles, 

although,  as  is  often  the  case  with  by-products,  the  value 

His  statements    may  bc  vcry  great.    But  the  fact  that  each  statement 

grew  out  of  •'  ^     *j 

special  occa-       grew  out  of  thc  occasiou  and  of  the  needs  of  the  person 

sions,  and  often     o  x- 

seem  inconsist-  addresscd,  Hot  infrequently  makes  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
upon  any  one  point  seem  contradictory  in  details.  For 
example,  we  saw  that  Jesus  appears  to  counsel  nonre- 
sistance  in  the  suggestion:  "When  a  man  gives  one  of  you 
a  blow  on  the  cheek,  ofi"er  the  other  cheek  as  well "  (Lk.  VI, 
29),  or  in  his  statement:  "All  who  draw  the  sword  will  be 


ent. 


JESUS  AND  MODERN  SOCIETY  157 

put  to  the  sword"  (ML  XXVI,  52);  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  seems  to  declare  as  positively:  "I  have  come  to 
bring,  not  peace  but  a  sword"  (ML  X,  34),  and  later  he 
advises  each  departing  disciple  to  "sell  his  cloak  and  buy 
a  sword"  (Lk.  XXII,  36).  Similarly,  Jesus  seems  to  be 
equally  inconsistent  in  declaring:  "Alas  for  you  who  are 
rich"  {Lk,  VT,  24),  but  in  meeting  with  the  young  man 
of  great  possessions  and  loving  him  (Mk.  X,  21). 

Obviously  we  cannot  gain  the  views  of  Jesus  from  any 
one  statement  on  a  subject.  We  must  reserve  our  judg- 
ment imtil  we  have  examined  all  the  passages  where  he 
dealt  with  it,  and  must  take  into  critical  consideration  the 
temperament  and  experiences  of  the  one  reporting  him. 
Otherwise  we  shall  be  certain  to  be  partial  and  one-sided 
in  our  understanding  of  his  social  teachings.  For  each 
of  his  seeming  pronouncements  is  but  the  outgrowth  of 
the  incident  with  which  he  is  dealing,  and  is  largely  col- 
ored by  it,  and  it  must  be  viewed  as  an  illustration  of 
some  underlying  principle.  For  Jesus  concerned  him- 
self with  the  promulgation  of  principles,  rather  than  def- 
inite rules. 

Jesus'  Attitude  toward  Marriage  and  Divorce.  —  The 
only  place  where  Jesus  has  ever  seemed  to  depart  from  his 
usual  procedure  of  laying  down  principles  rather  than 
laws,  is  found  in  the  case  of  marriage  and  divorce,  and 
even  this  exception  is  more  apparent  than  real.  Let  us 
examine  this  seeming  instance  of  specific  legislation  as 
reported  in  the  three  synoptic  gospels.  The  oldest  ac- 
count reads: 

''  Some  Pharisees  came  up,  and,  to  test  him,  asked:  'Has 
a  husband  the  right  to  divorce  his  wife? '  '  What  direction 


iS8 


WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 


Jesus  insisted 
upon  the  in- 
tegrity of  the 
marriage  bond; 


did  Moses  give  you?  *  replied  Jesus.  *  Moses,'  they  said, 
'permitted  a  man  to  draw  up  in  writing  a  notice  of  separa- 
tion and  divorce  his  wife.'  'It  was  owing  to  the  hardness 
of  your  hearts,'  said  Jesus,  'that  Moses  gave  you  this 
direction;  but,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Creation,  God 
made  them  male  and  female.  For  this  reason  a  man 
shall  leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  the  man  and  his 
wife  shall  become  one;  so  that  they  are  no  longer  two, 
but  one.  What  God  himself,  then,  has  yoked  together, 
man  must  not  separate.'  When  they  were  indoors, 
the  disciples  asked  him  again  about  this,  and  he 
said:  'Any  one  who  divorces  his  wife  and  marries 
another  woman  is  guilty  of  adultery  against  his  wife; 
and,  if  the  woman  divorces  her  husband  and  mar- 
ries another  man,  she  is  guilty  of  adultery ' "  (Mk.  X, 
2-12). 

The  general  position  here  taken  by  Jesus  would  seem 
to  be  fairly  clear.  In  opposition  to  lax  conditions  in  the 
maintenance  of  the  family  that  had  arisen  under  the 
Mosaic  law  and  that  had  become  scandalous  under  the 
Roman  jurisprudence,  he  seems  to  insist  upon  the  integ- 
rity of  the  marriage  bond.  He  admitted  that,  imder  the 
crude  conditions  when  the  Mosaic  law  (see  Deut.  XXIV, 
i)  was  instituted,  it  may  have  been  found  necessary  to 
permit  men  to  dismiss  their  wives  because  of  small  faults 
or  mere  displeasure  and  remarry,  in  order  that  worse 
might  not  happen.  But,  as  against  this,  he  asserted  the 
older  law  of  God  and  of  our  very  natures  {Gen.  I,  27  and 
II,  24),  that  by  marriage  two  lives  and  personalities  have 
been  merged,  and  a  spiritual,  as  well  as  physical,  union 
has  been  formed.    He  seems  to  have  regarded  marriage 


JISUS  AND  MODERN  SOCIETY  159 

not  as  a  concession  to  human  weakness,  but  as  a  fulfill- 
ment of  the  innate  social  and  spiritual  needs  of  man.  Be- 
cause of  the  importance  of  such  a  union  to  the  welfare  of 
the  individual  and  society,  he  maintained  that  it  should 
not  be  lightly  broken.  He  is  even  represented  as  declar- 
ing that  the  relation  could  not  be  dissolved  without  the 
commission  of  adultery. 

This  sentiment  is  briefly  corroborated  by  the  careful 
statement  of  Luke  (XVI,  18),  but  the  version  of  Matthew  in  general  he  re- 
(V,  32  and  XIX,  9)  softens  the  statement  to:  "Any  one  with^remSage, 
who  divorces  his  wife,  except  on  the  ground  of  her  unchas- 
tity,  and  marries  another  woman,  is  guilty  of  adultery. " 
The  exception,  however,  is  probably  an  ecclesiastical 
gloss  of  Matthew's  (see  p.  16),  to  make  matters  a  little 
easier  for  the  Church.     It  does  not  affect  the  principle, 
for,  in  the  case  of  adultery,  the  coalesced  personalities  may 
well  be  regarded  as  having  been  sundered.   Obviously,  un- 
der this  interpretation  of  Matthew,  the  innocent  party 
might  re-wed  without  offense,  and  modem  thinkers,  who 
claim  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  have  at 
times  gone  further  than  Matthew  in  the  looseness  of  Manyiegai 
their  construction.    Desertion,  habitual  cruelty,  heredi-  di?orctslem  out 
tary  insanity,  venereal  disease,  or  even  nonsupport,  as  a  the^spTr?t"or''*' 
cause,  has  by  some  been  held  to  be  the  full  equivalent  of 
adultery  in  breaking  the  physical  and  psychical  union. 
Such  an  elastic  interpretation  is,  of  course,  very  ques- 
tionable, especially  if  we  undertake  to  extend  it  to  all  of 
the  two  score  of  causes  recognized  in  various  states  of  the 
Union,  or  even  claim,  as  do  some  people,  that  divorce  and 
a  new  marriage  are  in  harmony  with  the  principles  of 
Jesus,  whenever  conjugal  love  is  felt  by  one  or  both  par- 


l6o  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

ties  to  be  dead.^  While  these  views  of  divorce  may  pos- 
sibly be  defended  on  the  ground  that  they  are  more  prac- 
tical, judicious,  or  sociologically  sound,  they  would  seem 
to  strain  the  priQciples  of  Jesus  beyond  the  breaking 
point.  The  civil  law  may  with  propriety  maintain  that 
marriage  is  a  temporary  contract  arranged  for  the  con- 
venience of  the  parties  concerned,  and  scholars  may  rea- 
sonably hold  that  the  monogamic  family  is  but  the  prod- 
uct of  evolution  and  is  subject  to  further  transition  and 
change,  but  certainly  shiftiness  or  impermanence  in  such 
a  vital  social  relation  hardly  seems  in  keeping  with  the 
ideal  fraternity  and  the  social  and  divine  nature  of  man  as 
conceived  by  Jesus. 

But  even  in  this  matter,  it  is  not  likely  that  Jesus 
wished  to  assume  the  attitude  of  a  lawgiver  and  formulate 
a  definite  program  or  unchanging  scheme  of  domestic  re- 
^"sume  tbT  °°^  lations.  While  the  spirit  of  his  teachings  is  clear,  they 
givlr''^^°^*^^^"  seem  to  be  intended  not  as  legislation,  but  as  an  illustra- 
tion of  his  ideas  about  the  nature  of  marriage,  which  are 
in  keeping  with  all  his  principles  concerning  the  nature  of 
God  and  man  and  of  sin  and  salvation.  It  is  a  genuine 
union  of  personaHties,  physical  and  spiritual,  and,  if  the 
Kingdom,  or  divine  society  upon  earth,  is  to  be  realized, 
there  is  great  danger  in  instability.  The  principles  of 
Jesus,  however,  constitute  an  ideal  and  not  a  law.  It  does 
not  seem  probable  that  concerning  the  matter  of  mar- 
riage and  divorce  alone,  vital  as  the  maintenance  of  the 

^This  latter  situation,  it  is  claimed,  means  a  continuance  of 
physical  relations  when  the  psychical  have  been  destroyed,  and 
is  a  sex  outrage  and  a  violation  of  the  idea  of  imion  set  up  by 
Jesus. 


JESUS  AND  MODERN  SOCIETY  l6l 

family  is  to  his  idea  of  brotherhood  and  a  divine  society, 
he  would  have  varied  from  his  usual  procedure.  He  was 
primarily  a  promulgator  of  great  principles;  not  a  promo- 
ter of  specific  social  reforms. 

His  Reverence  for  the  Family.  —  Jesus'  reverence 
and  care  for  the  preservation  of  the  human  family  ap-  J^^us  developed 
peared  in  a  variety  of  other  ways.  The  family  was  the  famV°'"  ^^ 
finest  development  under  the  Jewish  prophets  and 
sages,  but  the  regard  for  it  was  greatly  elaborated  by 
Jesus  and  his  ideal  of  social  structure  centered  about 
it.  Upon  this  analogy  he  based  his  conception  of  the 
Kingdom  or  heavenly  family.  With  him  the  unity 
of  the  family  became  a  social  force,  molding  all  man- 
kind into  one  divine  family  under  the  fatherhood  of 
God.  Through  the  home  alone  he  felt  that  the  finest 
and  most  significant  social  inheritances  can  be  taught 
and  trained  into  character.  And  without  the  coopera- 
tion of  the  family  and  society,  he  scarcely  hoped  that 
much  could  be  accomplished  for  the  race. 

This  regard  of  Jesus  for  the  family  was  also  re- 
flected in  his  habitual  sympathy  for  domestic  life  and 
his  considerate  attitude  toward  women.  He  placed  wonfifu^pon  a 
woman  upon  a  par  with  man,  and  made  her  some-  P^^^'thman, 
thing  more  than  a  plaything  or  toy,  —  more  than  a 
creature  of  man's  fancy,  an  instrument  of  his  pas- 
sion, or  a  subject  of  his  tyranny.  With  Jesus,  woman 
was  regarded  as  the  companion  and  friend  of  man, 
and  became  endowed  with  the  same  rights  and 
duties, — 

"  A  creature  not  too  fair  and  good 
For  human  nature's  daily  food." 


1 62  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

While  woman  had  come  to  be  very  largely  emanci- 
pated before  the  days  of  the  Roman  Empire,  and  to 
occupy  a  fairly  important  position  among  the  Jews, 
Jesus  raised  her  beyond  any  standing  she  yet  had  known. 
In  Rome  she  was  continually  ridiculed  by  the  satirist 
and  writer  of  comedy,  and  in  Judxea  she  could  easily 
be  divorced  by  her  husband  and  had  little  recourse 
[ ^against  this  abuse. 

The  condition  of  equality,  sympathetic  companion- 
ship, and  respect  to  which  she  attained  through  Jesus 
is  witnessed  by  numerous  incidents  in  his  life.  There 
is  nowhere  recorded  a  dealing  of  Jesus  with  women 
that  is  not  respectful  and  kindly.  The  housewife  car- 
ried to  him  her  cares  of  preparing  the  meal,  and  was  by 
him  raised  to  sentiments  beyond  her  dull  routine  (Lk. 
X,  38-42).  The  degraded  woman  called  forth  his  sym- 
pathy, and  to  her  he  revealed  an  ability  to  be  pure  and 
kind  at  the  same  time  {Lk.  XXI,  38  f!.;  Jn.  VIII,  i  ff.). 
It  was  women  that  especially  afforded  him  and  his 
apostles  material  support  out  of  their  own  means,  in 
gratitude  for  what  he  had  done  for  them  {Lk.  VIII,  2  f.). 
A  woman,  too,  through  grateful  faith,  anointed  him 
with  costly  perfume  during  his  last  days  upon  earth 
(ML  XXVI,  6-13;  Jn.  XII,  1-8).  Finally,  it  was  a  wo- 
man of  whose  welfare  he  thought  even  when  death  im- 
pended, and  with  his  last  words  he  commended  his 
mother  to  the  care  of  his  beloved  disciple  {Jn.  XIX, 
26  f.). 

Thus,  the  great  apostle,  Paul,  in  interpreting  the 
teachings  of  Jesus,  might  well  say:  "All  distinctions 
between  .  .  .  male  and  female  have  vanished;  for  in 


JESUS  AND  MODERN  SOCIETY  163 

tmlon  with  Christ  Jesus  you  are  all  one"  {Gal.  Ill,  28). 
Yet  in  maintaining  the  equality  and  companionship  of 
women,  as  elsewhere,  Jesus  held  to  principles  rather 
than  precepts,  and  was  not  concerned  with  social  re- 
forms and  specific  legislation.  He  did  not  directly 
attack  any  of  the  conventions  that  then  and  centuries 
since  have  kept  woman  as  a  political,  legal,  and  eco- 
nomic dependent  of  man.  He  never  inveighed  specif- 
ically against  the  double  standard  of  morality,  nor  ad-  s^^cm?"efo°L. 
vocated  equal  rights  for  women.  Here  also  he  seems 
to  have  felt  that,  as  his  spirit  and  general  teachings 
prevailed,  all  special  cases  of  injustice  and  evil  would 
naturally  vanish. 

The  importance  that  Jesus  attached  to  the  integrity 
of  the  family  is  also  seen  in  the  deep  personal  inter- 
est and  regard  that  he  had  for  children.  1  He  could 
never  conceive  of  children  being  treated  by  their  par- 
ents in  any  except  a  kindly  way  {Mt.  VII,  9  f.;  Lk. 
XI,  II  f.).  The  most  familiar  picture  that  we  can  form 
of  the  Master  shows  him  with  little  children  upon  his 
knee  or  in  his  arms  {Mk.  IX,  36;  X,  6).  Likewise,  we 
read  that  "little  children  were  brought  to  Jesus,  for 
him  to  place  his  hands  on  them,  and  pray"  {Mt.  XIX, 
13).  And  he  seems  to  have  been  glad  that  children 
were  playing  an  important  part  in  his  triumphal  entry 
into  Jerusalem  {ML  XXI,  15  ff.)- 

Jesus  loved  children  for  their  simplicity,  intuition, 
humility,    and    teachableness,    and,    because   of    these 
qualities,  made  them  generally  symbolic  of  the  entrance 
of  an  individual  soul  into  the  divine  community.    "Let  Jren "ymboi^  of 
the  little  children  come  to  me,"  he  said,  "and  do  not  christian  life. 


164  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

hinder  them;  for  it  is  to  the  childlike  that  the  Kingdom 
of  God  belongs.  I  tell  you,  unless  a  man  receives  the 
Kingdom  of  God  like  a  child,  he  will  not  enter  it  at  all" 
{Mh  X,  14  f.;  Lk.  XVIII,  16  f.;  ML  XIX,  14).  Simi- 
larly, he  made  the  life  of  the  child  typical  of  the  real 
Christian  life,  when  the  disciples  came  to  him  and  asked: 
"  WTio  is  really  the  greatest  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven?  " 
On  that  occasion  he  called  a  little  child  to  him,  and  said: 
'^Any  one  who  will  humble  himself  like  this  child — that 
man  shall  be  the  greatest  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 
And  any  one  who,  for  the  sake  of  my  Name,  welcomes 
even  one  little  child  like  this,  is  welcoming  me"  {ML 
XVIII,  1-5).  So,  too,  he  uttered  the  prayer:  "I  thank 
thee,  Father,  Lord  of  Heaven  and  earth,  that,  though 
thou  hast  hidden  these  things  from  the  wise  and  learned, 
thou  hast  revealed  them  to  the  childlike!  Yes,  Father, 
I  thank  thee  that  this  has  seemed  good  to  thee"  {ML 
XI,  25  f.).  Hence,  when  about  to  leave  his  disciples, 
Jesus  referred  to  them  as  his  "children"  {Mk,  X,  24; 
/^.  XIII,  33). 
and  since  his  day       Since  the  day  of  Jesus  our  attitude  toward  children 

the  attitude  to-  . 

rreSiy^chlngS,  ^^^  ^^^^^  training  and  discipline  has  greatly  improved. 
Children  now  have  a  hold  upon  the  thoughts,  feelings, 
and  conduct  of  men  such  as  was  never  possessed  in 
ancient  times.  While  many  factors  have  undoubtedly 
contributed  to  this  humanization,  one  chief  cause  has 
been  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus.  Yet  here  again 
it  is  with  Jesus  a  matter  of  ideals  and  principles,  rather 
prescrlbl'InSes  ^^^"-  ^^  spccific  prcccpts  and  laws.  He  never  prescribed 
for  their  train-  ^^y  definite  rcgulatious  for  rearing  and  educating  chil- 
dren, or  for  their  treatment  by  parents  or  others.    He 


JESUS  AND  MODERN  SOCIETY  165 

seems  to  have  felt  that  his  conception  of  the  fatherhood 
of  God  and  brotherhood  of  man,  and  the  ideals  associ- 
ated therewith  were  sufficient  to  produce  the  most 
satisfactory  results  in  every  age.  He  simply  taught  the 
dignity  of  every  human  soul,  the  duty  of  sympathizing 
with  the  weak  and  lowly,  and  the  important  position 
of  children  in  human  life.  It  has  been  left  to  those  who 
would  follow  him  to  apply  these  principles  and  to  fit 
them  to  the  needs  and  possibilities  of  an  imperfect 
society. 

Jesus'  Use  of  Banquets  and  Social  Life.  —  The  gen- 
eral attitude  of  Jesus  toward  social  life  and  recreation 
may  also  be  readily  gathered  from  his  statements  and 
conduct  upon  sundry  occasions.  It  is  obvious  that, 
while  he  was  *'  a  man  of  sorrow  and  not  unacquainted  with 
grief,"  this  was  not  the  dominant  note  in  his  life.  His 
whole  soul  was  wrapped  up  in  duty  and  achievement, 
but  he  often  sought  joy  and  diversion  as  a  means  of 
refreshing  liimself  for  his  own  work  and  of  teaching 
higher  lessons  to  others.  He  was  no  ascetic,  but  associ- 
ated himself  with  an  accepted  hospitality  from  all  classes. 
There  is  no  record  of  his  ever  declining  an  invitation 
to  a  social  gathering.  He  began  his  mission  by  being 
present  at  a  wedding  feast  (Jn.  II,  1-12),  and  closed 
it  with  bringing  his  disciples  about  a  common  board 
(ML  XIV,  IS  ff.).  He  was  entertained  by  his  future  JSids'd'fo?" 
disciple,  Matthew,  upon  an  occasion  when  "a  number  oSonf/^^^'''^ 
of  taxgatherers  and  outcasts  took  their  places  at  table 
with  Jesus  and  his  disciples,"  and  his  association  with 
these  people  brought  him  much  censure  (Mk.  II,  13-16). 
Likewise,  he  encountered  criticism  by  requesting  an 


l66  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

invitation  to  visit  in  the  home  of  Zaccheus,  who  was 
a  tax-gatherer  and  a '' sinner '^  {Lk.  XIX,  5  fif.).  More- 
over, it  was  at  a  dinner  given  him  by  the  Pharisee, 
Simon,  that  "a  woman,  who  was  an  outcast  in  the 
town,  .  .  .  brought  an  alabaster  jar  of  perfume,  and 
/  placing  herself  behind  Jesus  near  his  feet,  .  .  .  anointed 
them  with  the  perfume,"  and  thus  led  to  Simon's  ques- 
tioning the  status  of  Jesus  as  a  prophet  {Lk.  VII,  36- 
39).  And  at  a  breakfast  to  which  he  was  asked  by 
another  Pharisee,  we  know  that  he  was  taxed  by  his 
host  with  not  observing  the  Jewish  ceremonial  {Lh  XI, 

Upon  many  other  festive  occasions  Jesus  must  have 
been  in  attendance.  Banquets  often  figure  as  the  central 
feature  iq  his  parables,  and  even  the  Prodigal  Son  closes 
with  a  celebration  of  this  kind.  This  frequent  mention 
of  and  participation  in  social  life  during  his  ministry 
brought  down  upon  the  Master  much  abuse  not  only 
for  the  company  he  kept,  but  as  a  "glutton  and  wine- 
but  he  did  this    bibber"  (Mt.  XI,  19;  Lk.  VII,  34).    But  Jesus  was,  of 

to  prepare  for  ^  J       :?  7  i   sj-r/  j  j 

hlVothere'!'^  course,  neither  an  epicure  nor  a  mere  pleasure  seeker. 
Life  to  him  was  more  than  food  and  drink  {ML  VI,  25; 
cf.  Rom.  XIV,  17).  It  was  always  his  purpose,  by  means 
of  festive  gatherings,  to  prepare  himself  for  further  work, 
and  to  advance  the  happiness  and  moral  welfare  of 
others. 

He  did  not  op-       Hence  Jesus  did  not  treat  any  particular  material 

pose  or  prescribe  *>  j     ir 

soaai'^'Stertain-  pl^asure  or  spccics  of  social  life  as  inherently  wrong  and 
'°^°''  an  unmitigated  source  of  evil,  but  taught  that  it  be- 

came so  only  when  completely  yielded  to  and  made  an 
end  in  itself.    Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  did  he  specifically 


JESUS  AND  MODERN  SOCIETY  167 

prescribe  banquets,  parties,  and  other  amusements. 
Everything  of  the  sort  must  become  a  means  to  some- 
thing higher.  In  his  philosophy  there  were  no  set  rules 
with  regard  to  forms  of  diversion.  Nothing  was  def- 
initely required  or  forbidden;  all  depended  upon  the 
use  made  of  it.  Food  and  clothing,  creature  comforts  uponThTuS 
and  enjoyment,  were  all  of  value  in  their  way,  but  he  ^^^^  °^  *'* 
bade  his  disciples:  "first  seek  his  Kingdom,  and  then 
all  these  things  shall  be  added  for  you"  (ML  VI,  31  ff.). 
He  did  not  condemn  the  joys  and  relaxations  of  this 
world,  nor  advocate  self-abnegation  per  se.  He  held 
that  we  overcome  the  world,  not  by  isolating  ourselves 
from  it,  but  by  subordinating  it  to  our  higher  uses.  He 
prayed  for  his  disciples:  "I  do  not  ask  thee  to  take  them 
out  of  the  world,  but  to  keep  them  from  Evil"  (Jn. 
XVII,  15).  He  preferred  that  they  should  rather  re- 
main in  the  midst  of  society  as  "  the  Light  of  the  world" 
(ML  V,  14). 

Jesus'  Attitude  toward  Wealth.  —  Again,  in  regard  to 
the  accumulation  of  wealth  in  this  life,  as  already 
noted  (see  p.  157),  we  must  be  careful  not  to  distort  the 
teachings  of  Jesus.  We  must  look  for  underlying  prin- 
ciples, rather  than  for  definite  commands.  The  various 
passages  of  the  gospel  in  which  he  treats  of  wealth 
must  not  be  taken  literally  or  as  a  set  of  disconnected 
aphorisms,  but  the  scattered  statements  must  be  care- 
fully weighed  and  a  general  impression  derived. 

On  the  one  hand,  there  are  innumerable  passages, 
especially  in  Luke  (see  p.  18),  where  Jesus  pointed  out 
the  dangers  of  wealth.     He  hinted  constantly  at  the  Jg^g^J^ 
difficulties  that  exist  for  the  holders  of  great  riches,  and 


i68 


WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 


transitoriness, 


dulling  of 
sjmipathy, 


sternly  warned  those  who  were  very  prosperous.  Riches 
he  repeatedly  showed,  in  the  first  place,  are  transient; 
the  tenure  of  them  is  brief,  and  the  pleasures  that  they 
can  bring  are  limited.  The  rich  man  of  the  parable,  who 
had  lived  only  to  fill  his  bams,  found  that  his  life  was 
required  of  him  before  he  had  time  to  enjoy  his  wealth. 
"So  it  is,"  said  Jesus,  "with  those  who  lay  by  wealth 
for  themselves  and  are  not  rich  to  the  glory  of  God" 
{Lk.  XII,  2i).  Hence  he  advised  his  disciples:  "Sell 
what  belongs  to  you,  and  give  in  charity,"  since  the 
credit  thereby  obtained  in  heaven  would  not  be  liable 
to  theft  or  loss,  like  earthly  wealth  {Lk.  XII,  33  f . ;  Mt, 
VI,  19  f.).  The  possession  of  wealth,  too,  he  clearly 
saw,  tends  to  dull  one's  sense  of  human  brotherhood, 
and  to  cause  him  to  forget  the  existence  of  misery  in 
others.  The  rich  man  was  utterly  oblivious  of  Lazarus, 
who  lay  at  his  gate,  was  covered  with  sores,  and  longed 
to  satisfy  his  hunger  with  the  crumbs  that  fell  from  the 
other's  table  {Lk.  XVI,  19  ff.).  Likewise,  the  wealthy 
young  man  of  conventional  morals,  who  consulted  Jesus, 
was  felt  by  him  to  be  too  complacent  of  existing  con- 
ditions, and  was  told:  "There  is  one  thing  still  lacking 
in  you;  sell  everything  that  you  have,  and  distribute  to 
the  poor  "  {Lk.  XVIII,  2  2 ;  M/.  XIX,  2 1) .  This  advice  en- 
tailed a  more  complete  surrender  of  possessions  than  Jesus 
elsewhere  required,  but  he  realized  that  the  antidote  was 
none  too  strong  for  the  selfishness  of  the  individual  con- 
cerned. The  man's  wealth,  he  saw,  had  blinded  him  to 
the  suffering  of  the  poor,  and  affected  his  entire  character. 
His  accumulations  had  not  only  resulted  in  wronging 
others,  but  in  largely  ruining  his  own  possibilities. 


JESUS  AND  MODERN  SOCIETY  169 

This  dwarfing  of  personaKty,  so  subversive  of  one's  ^^^^  °^  ^^' 
best  interests  and  happiness,  was  another  reason  for 
Jesus'  invectives  against  wealth.  "What  good  is  it  to 
a  man,"  he  asked,  "to  gain  the  whole  world  and  forfeit 
his  life?"  {Mk.  VIII,  36).  And  again  he  exclaimed: 
"Alas  for  you  who  are  rich,  for  you  have  had  your  com- 
forts in  full"  {Lk.  VI,  24).  He  thus  condemns  the  rich, 
not  because  of  their  wealth,  but  because  they  have  no 
further  aspiration.  And,  as  he  says  later:  "Even  in  the 
height  of  his  prosperity  a  man's  true  Life  does  not  depend 
on  what  he  has  "  (Lk.  XII,  15).  As  we  have  seen,  too,  in 
all  the  preceding  citations,  it  was  only  by  a  regard  for 
the  poor  and  the  consequent  development  of  his  own 
character  that  one  could  come  into  harmony  with  the  and  want  of 

•'  harmony  with 

love  of  the  Father,  and  claim  membership  in  the  King-  ^^'^' 
dom.  "No  one,"  Jesus  said  elsewhere,  "can  serve  two 
masters,  for  either  he  will  hate  one  and  love  the  other, 
or  else  he  will  attach  himself  to  one  and  despise  the  other. 
You  cannot  serve  both  God  and  Money"  (ML  VI,  24). 
And  this  was  the  ground  for  his  hyperbolic  remark  to 
the  disciples,  when  the  young  man  of  great  possessions 
went  away  distressed  at  his  suggestion  of  giving  up  his 
wealth:  "It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  get  through  the 
needle's  eye  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  the  ICingdom  of 
Heaven"  (ML  XIX,  24;  Mk.  X,  24  f.). 

On  the  other  hand,  Jesus  frequently  showed  no  op- 
position whatever  even  to  very  great  wealth.  If  he  had 
disapproved  of  the  accumulation  of  property,  it  would 
be  difficult  to  account  for  his  use  of  metaphors  drawn 
from  the  relations  and  duties  of  householders,  landowners, 
and  stewards,  to  throw  light  upon  spiritual  truths.   More- 


17©  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

but  wealth  b      over,  whfle  he  approved  of  Zaccheus,  for  example,  when 

justifiable,  when  '  ^*^  ,  '  *•       ' 

'u5ic'^?od^°  he  offered  to  give  one-half  his  property  to  the  poor, 
there  is  no  indication  that  he  objected  to  his  retention 
of  the  remainder  (Lk.  XIX,  8).  Although  he  generally 
recognized  that  the  pursuit  of  riches  might  destroy  the 
highest  ideals  and  interests  both  of  man  and  society, 
he  elsewhere  taught  that  great  possessions  could  be 
rightfully  obtained  and  faithfully  used.  If  they  master 
the  possessor,  he  becomes  their  slave;  but  they  may  be 
made  his  servant  and  be  used  to  minister  to  the  highest 
interests  of  himself  and  society.  Wealth  may  be  prop- 
erly used  for  charity,  for  increasing  the  happiness  or 
culture  of  the  people  at  large,  or  for  enabling  one  to 
carry  on  scrupulously  and  effectively  his  special  work 
in  life.  Money,  Jesus  would  seem  to  hold,  is  not  owned, 
but  owed  by  the  rich;  it  constitutes  a  trusteeship,  not 
a  possession.  Wealth  is  justifiable,  provided  that  it  con- 
tributes to  the  public  good. 

Hence  in  the  parable  of  the  talents  (ML  XXV,  14-30), 
Jesus  did  not  condemn,  but  decidedly  approved  of  thrift 
and  the  accumulation  of  property.  "Well  done,  good, 
trustworthy  servant,"  the  master  is  represented  as  saying 
to  the  one  who  had  successfully  invested  the  sum  in- 
trusted to  him,  while  the  one  who  had  kept  the  money 
unemployed  is  called,  "You  lazy,  worthless  servant!" 
And  the  master  even  went  so  far  in  rewarding  the  thrifty 
servant  as  to  present  him  with  the  money  taken  from  the 
other  and  to  declare:  "To  him  who  has,  more  will  be 
given,  and  he  shall  have  abundance;  but,  as  for  him  who 
has  nothing,  even  what  he  has  will  be  taken  away  from 
him.'*    So  even  an  unjust  steward  is  commended,  be- 


JESUS  AND  MODERN  SOCIETY  171 

cause  he  utilized  the  material  means  of  his  master  to 
secure  things  of  more  value,  —  friendship  and  business 
credit  {Lk.  XVI,  1-12).  A  wise  administration  of  wealth, 
therefore,  is  one  that  leads  to  the  building  of  character, 
and  Jesus  counsels:  *' Store  up  treasures  for  yourselves 
in  Heaven,  where  neither  moth  nor  rust  destroys  and 
where  thieves  do  not  break  in  and  steal.  For  where  your 
treasure  is,  there  will  your  heart  be  also"  {Mt.  VI,  19  f.; 
Lk.  XII,  33  f.).  ^ 

Thus  it  is  possible  to  get  back  of  these  two  radically 
divergent  views  of  Jesus  about  wealth  to  the  general 
principles  involved.    He  does  not  stigmatize  the  accumu-  ^^  s^fmaS^ 
lation  of  riches  in  itself,  except  as  it  brings  a  man's  char-  jeopSis^^  '^ 
acter  into  jeopardy.    Wealth  may  be  used  to  the  benefit  ^^^'^^'^^^• 
of  society  and  the  strengthening  of  its  possessor.    No  sin- 
gle social  type  —  the  rich  or  the  poor  —  monopolized  the 
sympathy  or  acceptance  of  Jesus,  and  he  never  intended 
to  array  one  class  against  the  other.    The  categories  of 
his  social  judgment  were  never  those  of  wealth  and  pov- 
erty; he  was  interested  only  in  the  extension  of  the  King- 
dom of  God. 

Jesus'  Ideas  about  Almsgiving.  —  Similarly,  Jesus  Jjsus  says  little 
has  little  to  say  about  the  giving  of  alms.  From  one  giving; 
passage  only  do  we  gather  that  he  was  himself  accus- 
tomed to  give  to  the  poor  {Jn.  XIII,  29),  and  there  it  is 
found  merely  stated  as  a  fact  without  further  reference 
to  attendant  circumstances.  He  was  concerned  with 
removing  the  conditions  of  poverty,  rather  than  with 
alleviating  it.  The  cure  of  the  disease  he  believed  to  lie 
in  eradicating  its  causes,  moral  and  intellectual,  rather 
than  in  treating  the  symptoms.    He  endeavored  to  de- 


tji  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

velop  industry  and  fidelity,  on  the  one  hand,  and  check 
all  exaction,  exploitation,  and  other  social  ills  on  the  other, 
by  putting  men  in  the  right  relations  with  God  and  their 
fellows  and  inspiring  fraternity  and  helpfulness,  and  by 
recognizing  wealth  as  a  species  of  stewardship.  He  was 
strikingly  considerate  and  tender  toward  the  poor,  as  is 
shown  in  a  variety  of  his  sayings.  ^'Blessed  are  you  who 
are  poor,  for  yours  is  the  Kingdom  of  God,"  for  example, 
is  the  form  in  which  the  beatitude  appears  in  Luke  (VT, 
20).  The  complacent  young  man  is  advised  to"  give  (or 
distribute)  to  the  poor"  {ML  XIX,  21;  Lk.  XVIII,  22), 
and  the  disciples  are  instructed  to  "give  to  everyone  who 
asks  of  you"  {ML  V,  42;  Lk.  VI,  30).  But  no  definite 
indication  is  ever  given  as  to  the  intention,  manner,  or 
amount  of  the  donation. 

In  fact,  almsgiving  is  clearly  only  an  incidental  of  the 
teaching  of  Jesus,  and  may  at  times  be  even  contradic- 
he  warns  against  tory  of  his  main  principles.  For,  praiseworthy  as  he 
assumed  it  to  be,  he  often  warns  against  the  abuses, 
ostentation,  or  conunerciaHsm  into  which  it  may  sink. 
''Therefore,  when  you  do  acts  of  charity,"  he  said,  ''do 
not  have  a  trumpet  blown  in  front  of  you,  as  hypocrites 
do  in  the  synagogues  and  in  the  streets,  that  they  may 
be  praised  by  others.  There,  I  tell  you,  is  their  reward! 
But,  when  you  do  acts  of  charity,  do  not  let  your  left 
hand  know  what  your  right  hand  is  doing,  so  that  your 
charity  may  be  secret;  and  your  Father,  who  sees  what  is 
in  secret,  will  recompense  you"  {ML  VI,  2  ff.).  In  the 
case  of  the  Good  Samaritan  {Lk.  X,  30-36),  the  financial 
relief  is  pictured  as  of  much  less  importance  than  the 
compassion  and  care  shown  him.   Likewise,  the  rich  men 


JESUS  AND  MODERN  SOCIETY  1 73 

who  gave  of  their  superfluity  to  the  Temple  offerings 

were  scorned  in  comparison  with  the  widow  with  her 

two  farthings,  of  whom  Jesus  said:  "I  tell  you  that  this 

poor  widow  has  put  in  more  than  all  the  others;  for  every 

one  else  here  put  in  something  from  what  he  had  to  spare, 

while  she,  in  her  need,  has  put  in  all  she  had  to  live  upon ''  nf  definite  Ses 

{Lk.  XX,  1-4).    Evidently,  with  Jesus,  almsgiving  is  an  ^°"'' 

important  virtue,  but  no  definite  rules  can  be  laid  down 

for  it,  and  it  requires  watchfulness  and  discipline.    Its 

value  depends  upon  the  spirit  in  which  it  is  given  and  the 

sacrifice  it  entails. 

The  Attitude  of  Jesus  toward  Industrial  Conditions.  — 
In  his  teaching  concerning  industrial  life,  too,  Jesus  gave 
no  specific  instruction  and  laid  down  no  definite  program. 
He  viewed  all  questions  from  above  and  treated  them  from 
the  standpoint  of  preparation  for  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
Although  many  have  represented  him  as  the  advocate  of 
one  system  or  another  —  individualism,  communism,  so- 
cialism, anarchy  —  in  reality,  he  never  advocated  any  jesus  advocated 

.-  .  ,  ,__  111  111°°  definite  form 

definite  form  of  economic  control.    He  would  have  held  of  economic  con- 
trol, 

that  any  industrial  system  is  to  be  valued  by  its  contri- 
bution to  character  rather  than  by  economic  advantage, 
and  that  our  desires  and  ambitions  should  be  for  spiritual, 
and  not  economic,  profit.  His  motive  is  quite  different 
from  that  of  various  propagandists.  Where  they  would 
begin  with  economic  needs  and  proceed  to  economic  re- 
forms, he  started  with  spiritual  needs  and  led  toward  a 
spiritual  Kingdom.  The  one  holds  to  economic  trans- 
formation as  the  basis  of  character;  the  other  bases  his  ex- 
pectations upon  the  belief  that  character  will  produce 
economic  transformation. 


174  WHAT  DID  JESUS   TEACH? 

Thus  Jesus  Implied  that  the  real  difficulty  with  indus- 
trial conditions  is  not  mechanical,  but  moral.  From  his 
principle  already  discussed,  that  wealth  is  to  be  held  by 
its  possessor  in  trust  for  society,  it  would  follow  that  a 
faithful  steward  would  see  that  those  for  whom  he  held 
it  were  given  sufficient  means  for  their  support.  This 
would  mean  at  least  a  living  wage  for  all.  Hence,  while 
Jesus  recognized  in  the  parable  of  the  talents  that  men 
should  be  rewarded  according  to  their  efforts,  by  the 
story  of  the  workers  in  the  vineyard  (ML  XX,  1-15)  he 
but  estimated  all  taught   that   the   employer   should   be   interested   not 

existing  institu-         ,  .    n       •  •  -i  i       i  /•  •     •  r 

to  the^^rind^l  chiefly  m  gettmg  the  work  done  for  a  mimmum  of  cost, 
of  fraternity.  ^^^  j^  scciug  that  employment  and  a  living  were  afforded 
to  all.  Those  who  had  worked  but  an  hour,  as  well  as  the 
full-time  laborers,  had  done  their  best,  and  it  was  the 
duty  of  society  to  afford  them  both  a  livelihood.  Here 
also,  then,  Jesus  was  not  an  economist,  and  was  urging 
no  industrial  propaganda,  but  he  would  determine  the 
value  of  any  existing  economic  institution  or  custom 
according  as  it  tended  toward  the  establishment  of  the 
principle  of  fraternity  or  not. 

Jesus'  Position  on  Politics  and  Government.  —  Con- 
cerning government  and  politics  also,  Jesus  seems  never 
to  have  made  any  definite  pronouncement.  While  we 
find  general  statements,  comparisons,  and  implications 
on  the  subject  scattered  through  the  gospels,  he  no- 
He  did  not  favor  whcrc  formulatcd  a  political  system.   To  have  advocated 

one  form  of  ■^  *^ 

|o^^rnment  or  quc  type  of  govemmcnt  above  all  others,  or  to  have 
favored  one  political  party  or  another,  would  have 
limited  his  message  to  his  own  day;  and  he  would  al- 
most certainly  have  ruined  his  influence,  had  he  aroused 


JESUS  AND  MODERN  SOCDETT  175 

political  feelings  in  any  direction.  At  that  time  the 
civil  government  was  largely  in  the  hands  of  Rome, 
but  the  Jews  held  two  very  different  attitudes  toward 
it.  While  the  Roman  Emperor  had  granted  relative 
local  autonomy  to  Herod  Antipas,  son  of  Herod  the 
Great,  who  represented  him  in  Galilee  and  Perea,  Judaea 
came  more  directly  under  the  imperial  government 
through  the  procurators.  The  majority  of  the  people 
felt  that  they  should  submit  to  this  latter  control,  but 
a  goodly  minority,  known  as  the  "Herodians,"  were 
ready  to  revolt  at  any  favorable  moment.  It  was,  there- 
fore, with  the  idea  of  embroiling  Jesus  either  with  the 
Roman  government  or  with  the  Herodians,  that  the 
Pharisees  once  asked  him:  "Are  we  right  in  paying  taxes 
to  the  Emperor,  or  not?"  But,  instead  of  answering 
categorically,  he  said:  "Pay  to  the  Emperor  what  be- 
longs to  the  Emperor,  and  to  God  what  belongs  to  God" 
{Mk.  Xn,  13  ff.;  ML  XXn,  15  ff.;  Lk.  XX,  20  f.). 

Thus  Jesus  avoided  the  horns  of  a  dilemma  and  a 
partisan  position  in  politics.  He  simply  recognized  con-  J^^gS  con- 
stituted  authority  in  its  own  sphere,  and  advocated  f*^'"**^  *"''*°^- 
obedience  to  it  when  it  existed  for  the  welfare  of  society. 
Elsewhere  he  showed  his  acceptance  of  existing  mon- 
archical institutions  by  the  illustrations  he  often  drew 
from  the  life  of  royalty.  Such  were  the  parable  con- 
cerning the  nobleman,  who  went  to  claim  his  kingdom 
and  left  ten  pounds  with  each  of  ten  servants  {Lk.  XEX, 
12-27),  the  story  of  the  king  who  made  a  marriage  feast 
for  his  son  {ML  XXH,  2-10),  the  parable  of  the  king 
that  was  more  merciful  than  one  of  his  subjects  {ML 
XVIII,  23-35),  2iid  the  statement  about  a  kingdom 


176  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

divided  against  itself  {ML  III,  24).  Similarly,  he  re- 
spected and  supported  the  existing  ecclesiastical  authori- 
ties. When  the  collectors  demanded  the  annual  Temple 
rate,  after  stating  his  claim  to  exemption  from  this  tax 
for  the  maintenance  of  his  Father's  house,  he  instructed 
Peter  how  to  pay  it  ^  (ML  XVII,  24  fif.).  He  would  not 
descend  to  a  controversy,  but  yielded  in  this  nonessential, 
in  order  that  he  might  stress  something  more  important 
and  that  his  example  to  the  contrary  might  not  tempt 
others  to  stumble. 
At  other  times  also  Jesus  showed  respect  for  the  needs 
he  held  that       and  claims  of  the  state  and  established  religion,  but,  as 

God  s  claims  ^         '  ' 

were  supreme.  Jn  the  case  of  the  civil  tax,  he  implied  that  this  was  of 
small  import  as  compared  with  obedience  to  God.  While, 
for  example,  he  justified  Pilate  as  a  judge  and  submitted 
to  the  government,  he  answered  Pilate's  declaration  of 
his  power  by  saying:  "You  would  have  no  power  over 
me  at  all,  if  it  had  not  been  given  you  from  above" 
{Jn.  XIX,  11).  He  was  never  primarily  concerned  in 
earthly  governments,  but  in  the  establishment  of  a  spir- 
itual Kingdom.  Thus  he  earlier  declared  to  Pilate: 
"My  kingly  power  is  not  due  to  this  world.  If  it  had 
been  so,  my  servants  would  be  doing  their  utmost  to 
prevent  my  being  given  up  to  the  Jews;  but  my  kingly 
power  is  not  from  the  world"  {Jn.  XVIII,  36).  Since 
the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  his  chief 
mission,  he  gave  no  definite  instructions  concerning 
earthly  government  and  political  parties.    He  yielded 

1  This  incident  does  not  appear  in  Mark  (IX,  33),  and  seems 
to  have  appealed  to  Matthew,  because  of  his  desire  to  heighten 
a  narrative  through  the  miraculous  (see  p.  16). 


JESUS  AND  MODERN  SOCIETY  1 77 

obedience  to  existing  authority,  and  confined  his  teaching 
to  principles  and  motives.  For  in  politics,  as  elsewhere, 
he  held  that  principles  are  eternal,  and  principalities  are 
ephemeral. 

The  Principles  of  Jesus  and  Their  Application. — 
Many  other  social,  economic,  and  political  questions  are 
discussed  in  the  gospels.  But  in  all  his  treatment  of 
social  problems,  as  in  the  rest  of  his  teaching,  Jesus 
lays  down  no  definite  laws.    And  any  one  who  seeks  Hence  on  aii 

•'  •'  social  problems 

to  discover  a  "rule  of  thumb"  is  liable  to  pervert  his  Jodefimtete 
teaching.  Such  a  man  is  endeavoring  to  make  a  sign- 
post out  of  a  guiding  star.  He  finds  precepts  and  rules, 
where  Jesus  had  the  vision  to  formulate  broad  principles 
and  high  ideals.  He  would  make  a  rule  of  thumb  of  the 
teachings  of  the  Master,  to  save  himself  the  necessity 
of  thinking  and  working  out  his  own  salvation.  He 
prefers,  by  a  blind  selfishness,  to  limit  the  sayings  to 
his  own  brief  span  of  life,  while  Jesus  uttered  his  teach- 
ings for  all  time.  Of  course,  this  is  not  to  say  that  Jesus 
has  no  message  for  modem  society.  On  the  contrary, 
it  has  been  found  that,  as  it  advances,  civilization  comes 
constantly  into  greater  harmony  with  the  principles  and 
teachings  of  Jesus.  But  we  must  make  the  application  cjSi^to'b?' 
for  ourselves.  His  more  important  message  does  not  ^^p^'®^- 
exist  for  the  dull,  inert,  or  closed  mind. 

Summary.  —  Jesus  formulated  ideals  and  principles, 
and  did  not  lay  down  definite  rules,  since  the  latter  could 
apply  but  to  a  single  age,  while  principles  are  eternal. 
His  utterances  upon  a  given  social  problem,  therefore, 
were  made  as  illustrations  of  his  principles,  and,  growing 
out  of  the  occasion,  often  seem  contradictory,  unless 


178  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

they  are  examined  together.  Jesus*  attitude  toward 
divorce  seems  most  nearly  an  exception  to  this  general 
procedure,  but,  while  he  held  that  marriage  united  two 
personalities,  and  that  any  breach  of  the  union,  though 
it  were  legal,  constituted  adultery,  it  is  doubtful  whether 
even  here  he  acted  as  a  lawgiver.  The  reverence  of  Jesus 
for  the  integrity  of  the  family  is  reflected  in  his  con- 
sideration for  women  and  his  love  of  children,  but  he 
did  not  advocate  any  special  reforms  in  the  treatment 
of  women,  nor  prescribe  regulations  for  the  rearing  of 
children.  Jesus  used  social  occasions  for  recreation  and 
instruction  in  higher  views  of  life,  but  formulated  no 
rules  concerning  diversions.  The  accumulation  of  wealth 
was  regarded  by  Jesus  as  dangerous  to  the  possessor 
and  to  society,  although  he  held  that  it  was  justifiable, 
if  treated  as  a  stewardship.  While  he  commended  alms- 
giving, he  wished  to  guard  against  its  abuses.  In  indus- 
trial life,  he  advocated  no  one  system,  but  held  that 
each  must  be  measured  by  a  moral,  rather  than  an 
economic  standard.  Nor  did  Jesus  formulate  a  definite 
political  system;  he  recognized  existing  authorities,  but 
held  to  the  principle  that  obedience  to  God  is  paramoimt. 
On  all  other  social  questions,  Jesus  laid  down  no  specific 
laws,  but  left  his  followers  to  apply  his  principles  to  the 
problems  of  each  age. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  READING 

Abbott,  Lyman.     The  Ethical  Teachings  of  Jesus. 

Jenks,  Jeremiah  W.    Social  Significance  of  the  Teaching  of  Jesus. 

Studies  VI-XI. 
Kent,  C.  F.     The  Social  Teachings  of  the  Prophets  and  Jesus, 

Chapters  XVI  and  XVIII-XXIL 


JESUS  AND  MODERN  SOCIETY  179 

Mathews,  Shaher.    Message  of  Jesus.    Chapters  IV-VII. 

Mathews,  S.  Social  and  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus,  Studies 
VII-IX. 

Mathews,  S.    Social  Teaching  of  Jesus.    Chapters  III-IX. 

Peabody,  F.  G.    Jesus  Christ  and  the  Social  Question.     Chapter  I. 

Rauschenbusch,  W.  Christianity  and  the  Social  Crisis.  Chap- 
ter II. 

Rauschenbusch,  W.  Christianizing  the  Social  Order.  Part  II, 
Chapter  VI;  Part  III,  Chapter  I. 

Stalker,  James.    The  Ethic  of  Jesus.    Chapters  XV  and  XVE. 


CONCLUSIONS 

WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

The  teachings  of  Jesus  were  presented  in  the  dress 
of  the  Messianic  prophesies  of  the  apocalyptic  writers, 
which  he  had  inherited  and  adapted.  They  centered 
around  the  Kingdom  of  God,  which  was  to  be  estab- 
lished in  the  near  future,  and  involved  the  inauguration 
of  a  new  order,  in  which  everything  would  be  in  com- 
plete accord  with  the  divine  will.  Jesus  felt  that  this 
future  Kingdom  was  so  near  at  hand  as  to  be  already 
projecting  its  influence  into  the  present,  and  that  men 
might  at  once  begin  to  submit  their  lives  to  its  higher 
law.  To  this  end  he  sought  to  foreshadow  the  new 
order  in  an  earthly  congregation  or  "church,"  which 
should  be  ready  to  inherit  the  divine  Kingdom  when 
it  came.  He  gathered  around  him  a  group  of  followers, 
and  strove  to  teach  them  his  new  conceptions  of  God 
and  the  higher  law.  But  the  Messianic  categories 
in  which  the  Master's  teachings  were  presented  had 
begim  to  lose  their  meaning  almost  before  the  gospels 
were  recorded.  They  have  ever  since  had  to  be  inter- 
preted anew  by  the  Church  he  started,  in  order  to  be 
intelligible  in  later  times  and  with  different  peoples. 
And  to-day  the  world  finds  its  consolation  and  help 
in  the  moral  and  religious  ideals  of  the  Master  and  the 
aspect  of  Jesus  as  a  teacher,  rather  than  in  the  con- 

i8o 


CONCLUSIONS  l8l 

summation  of  a  Messianic  Kingdom  and  in  his  coming 
in  power  and  glory. 

His  teachings  may  be  briefly  recapitulated.  Jesus 
described  God  as  "father,"  with  the  attributes  of  pro- 
tecting care,  pity,  and  forgiveness,  and  held  that  men 
became  the  sons  of  God  by  adopting  these  character- 
istics. On  the  social  side,  he  regarded  God  as  "king," 
and  made  humility,  purity,  and  service  the  test  of 
membership  in  his  Kingdom.  These  ideals,  then,  lead 
to  a  process  of  reconstructing  one's  life  known  as  "con- 
version," and  the  state  attained  thereby  is  called  "sal- 
vation." In  his  teaching  concerning  the  hereafter,  ac- 
cording to  John,  Jesus  asserted  a  present  resurrection, 
as  well  as  a  future.  The  same  evangelist  represents 
him  as  teaching  that  judgments  are  constantly  being 
made,  but  culminate  in  final  judgments;  and  that  re- 
ward and  punishment  will  not  consummate  with  death. 
For  the  solution  of  social  problems  —  divorce,  the  family, 
diversions,  wealth,  almsgiving,  industrial  conditions, 
and  politics,  Jesus  has  furnished  principles  and  not 
definite  rules.  And  his  utterances  upon  any  problem 
were  illustrative  of  these  principles,  and,  growing  out 
of  the  occasion,  often  seem  contradictory,  unless  they 
are  examined  together. 

Thus,  while  his  central  concept  of  the  Kingdom  was 
not  really  original  with  Jesus,  the  ideas  that  were  at 
first  ancillary  to  it  are  largely  his  own.  He  certainly 
associated  with  Messianism  a  higher  ethical  teaching 
than  the  traditional  rules  of  conduct  under  the  old  Law, 
and  this  was  the  legitimate  fruit  of  his  own  deep  sym- 
pathy with  the  will  of  God.    It  involved  a  fellowship 


l8i2  WHAT  DID  JESUS  TEACH? 

and  communion  with  God  so  intimate  that  it  could  be 
best  expressed  in  the  terms  of  the  relation  between 
father  and  son,  and  he  felt  that  he  had  in  his  own  life 
anticipated  this  relation.  Hence  the  Messianic  guise 
has  affected  but  httle  the  permanent  contribution  made 
by  the  teachings  of  Jesus.  The  presuppositions  from 
which  they  made  their  start  have  largely  disappeared, 
but  the  real  message  is  brighter  than  ever.  It  may  be 
differently  apprehended  by  various  ages  and  peoples, 
but  it  always  makes  the  same  striking  appeal.  What 
Jesus  taught  has  held  a  meaning  for  all  races  and  gener- 
ations of  men,  unequaled  by  that  of  any  other  teacher, 
and  the  Christian  teachings  have  made  their  way  into 
the  world,  unsurpassed  for  the  healing  of  the  nations. 


BOOKS    FOR   THE    STUDY   OF    JESUS   AS    A 
TEACHER 

Besides  the  standard  translations,  a  number  of  books  may 
be  mentioned  as  valuable  references  for  further  study.  The  list 
given  below,  while  extensive,  can  make  no  claim  to  completeness. 
It  has  been  confined  to  works  in  English,  and  for  the  most  part 
to  those  written  since  the  opening  of  this  century.  The  books 
seeming  to  be  more  important  have  generally  been  marked  with 
an  asterisk,  and  some  brief  bibliographical  notes  have  been  at- 
tempted in  various  places. 

I.  THE  GREEK  TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

*Lake,  K.    The  Text  of  the  New  Testament.    (Gorham,  1908.) 
Inexpensive  and  scholarly. 

*  MiLUGAN,  G.    New  Testament  Documents.     (Macmillan,  1913.) 

Illustrated,  popular,  and  interesting. 
Scrivener,  F.  H.  A.    The  New  Testament  in  Greek.    (Cambridge 

University,  1908.) 
SouTER,  A.    Text  and  Canon  of  the  New  Testament.    (Scribner, 

1913.) 
Westcott,  B.  F.,  and  Hojrt,  F.  J.  A.    The  New  Testament  in  Greek* 
(Macmillan,  1881.) 

n.  INTRODUCTIONS  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Bacon,  B.  W.    Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.     (Macmillan, 
1900.)    Inexpensive,  but  antiquated  in  part. 

*  Jones,    M.    The   New   Testament   in   the    Twentieth   Century, 

(Macmillan,  19 14.)    Popular  and  interesting. 
Juucher,  a.    Introduction  to  the  New   Testament.    (Putnam, 
1904.) 

x«3 


184  BOOKS  FOR  STUDY 

•MoFFATT,  James.    Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  New 

Testament.    (Scribner,  191 1.)    The  standard  work. 
MoHR,  J.  C.  B.    Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,    (Crown 

Theological  Library,  Williams  &  Norgate.) 
*Peake,   a.    S.    Critical  Introduction  to  the  New   Testament, 

(Scribner,  19 10.)    Inexpensive  handbook. 
Pfleiderer,  0.  Primitive  Christianity.    (Putnam,  1906-10.) 
SoDEN,  H.  VON.    History  of  Early  Christian  Literature,    (Putnam, 

1906.) 
Wrede,  W.    The  Origin  of  the  New  Testament,    (Harper,  1909.) 
Zahn,  T.    Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,    (Scribner,  1909.) 

Traditional,  but  learned. 


III.  COMMENTARIES  ON  THE  GOSPELS 

Allen,  W.  C.    St.  Matthew.    (Scribner,  1908.) 
Bacon,  B.  W.    Beginnings  of  the  Gospel  Story,    (Yale  Univer- 
sity, 1909.) 
Bruce,  A.  B.,  and  Dods,  M.    Expositor's  Greek  Testament,   (Dodd, 

1897.) 
Gould,  E.  P.    St.  Mark.    (Scribner,  1896.) 
*McNeile,  a.  H.    St.  Matthew,    (Macmillan,  1915.)    Exccp>- 

tionally  valuable. 
Menzies,  a.     The  Earliest  Gospel.    (Macmillan,  1901.) 
Plummer,  a.    St.  Matthew.    (Scribner,  1909.) 
Plummer,  a.    St.  Luke.     (Scribner,  1909.) 
SwETE,  H.  B.    St.  Mark.     (Macmillan,  1902.) 
Westcott,  B.  F.    St.  John.     (Murray,  1908.) 


IV.  THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

BuRKiTT,  F.  C.  The  Earliest  Sources  for  the  Life  of  Jesus. 
(Houghton,  Mifflin,  19 10.)  Inexpensive;  best  simple  intro- 
duction. 

*Burk:itt,  F.  C.  The  Gospel  History  and  Its  Transmission, 
(Scribner,  1907.) 


BOOKS  FOR  STUDY  185 

Burton,  E.  D.    Principles  of  Literary  Criticism  and  the  Synoptic 

Problem.    (University  of  Chicago  Press,  1904.) 
Carpenter,  J.  E.    The  First  Three  Gospels.    (Unitarian  S.  S. 

Society,  19 10.) 
Castor,   G.  D.    Matthew's  Sayings  of  Jesus.    (University  of 

Chicago  Press,  1918.) 
Harnack,  a.    Luke  the  Physician.     (Putnam,  1907.) 
Harnack,  A.     The  Sayings  of  Jesus.     (Putnam,  1908.) 
Harnacz,  a.    The  Date  of  the  Acts  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 

(Putnam,  19 11.) 
Hawkins,  J.  C.    Horce  Synopticce.    (Frowde,  1909.) 
Manson,  W.     The  First  Three  Gospels.     (Clark,  19 14.) 

*  Oxford,  Members  op  the  University  of.    Studies  in  the 

Synoptic    Problem.     (Oxford,    19 11.)    This    and    the    two 
books  following  are  up  to  date,  but  technical. 

*  Patton,  C.  S.    Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.     (Macmillan, 

19 1 5.)    See  note  above. 

*Sanday,  W.  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem.  (Clarendon 
Press,  1 9 1 1 .)    See  note  above. 

Stanton,  V.  H.  The  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents.  (Cam- 
bridge, 1909.) 

V.  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

ASKWITH,  E.  H.  The  Historical  Value  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
(Hodder,  1910.) 

Bacon,  B.  W.  The  Fourth  Gospel  in  Research  and  Debate.  (Mof- 
fat, 19 10.)    Erudite. 

Drummoito,  James.  The  Character  and  Authorship  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  (Scribner,  1904.)  In  favor  of  traditional  author- 
ship, though  by  a  Unitarian. 

♦Gardner,  P.  The  Ephesian  Gospel.  (Putnam,  1915.)  Best 
popular  treatment. 

Johnston,  J.  S.  The  Philosophy  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  (Gorham, 
1909.) 

Lewis,  F.  G.  The  Irenceus  Testimony  as  to  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
(University  of  Chicago,  19 10.) 


l86  BOOKS  FOR  STUDY 

♦SaNDAy,  W.    Th9  Criticism  9j  tk$  Fourth  Gospel.    (Scribncr, 

1905-) 

ScHMiEDEL,  P.  W.     The  Johannine  Writings.     (Macmillan,  1908.) 

*  Scott,  E.  F.  The  Fourth  Gospel.  (Houghton,  1909.)  In 
keeping  with  the  liberal  school. 

Wearing,  Thomas.  The  World  View  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  (Uni- 
versity of  Chicago  Press,  1918.) 

Wendt,  H.  H.  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  John.  (Scribner, 
1902.) 


VI.  HARMONIES  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

*  Burton,  E.  D.,  and  Goodspeed,  E.  J.    Earrrumy  of  the  Synoptic 

Gospels.     (Scribner,  19 17.)      Inexpensive,  and  best  for  the 

average  use. 
Sell,  H.  T.    The  Twentieth  Century  Story  of  Christ.     (Revell, 

1918.) 
Sharman,  H.  B.    Records  of  the  Life  of  Jesus.     (Doran,  1917.) 
Thompson,  J.  M.     The  Synoptic  Gospels.    (Oxford  University, 

1 9 10.)    Best  for  hterary  analysis. 
Wright,  A.    A  Synopsis  of  the  Gospels  in  Greek.    (Macmillan, 

1903.) 


VII.  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

Note. — Of  the  innumerable  lives  of  Jesus  only  a  few  need 
be  consulted.  They  all  may  be  classified  as  "conservative," 
"liberal,"  or  "eschatological,"  according  as  they  represent  the 
traditional  orthodox  point  of  view,  embody  the  modernistic 
psychological  treatment  of  the  German  school  of  the  last  century, 
or  accept,  wholly  or  in  part,  the  revolutionary  reinterpretation  of 
Weiss  and  Schweitzer  (see  pp.  138  f.).  All  the  presentations  of 
each  class  follow  the  same  general  lines.  The  beginner  is,  there- 
fore, advised  to  read  but  one  life  of  each  school,  and  then  analyze, 
compare,  and  interpret  the  synoptic  gospels  for  himself  upon  the 
basis  of  a  harmony,  such  as  that  of  Burton  and  Goodspeed. 


BOOKS  FOR  STUDY  187 

Anderson,  F.  L.     The  Man  of  Nazareth,    (Macmillan,  1914.) 

Belongs  to  liberal  school. 
BoussET,  W.    Jesus.    (Putnam,  1906.)    Liberal  or  psychological 

school. 
Briggs,  C.  a.    New  Light  on  the  Life  of  Jesus.     (Scribner,  1904.) 

Conservative. 
Bruce,  A,  B.    With  Open  Face.    (Scribner,  1896.)    Liberal. 
Case,  S.  J.     The  Historicity  of  Jesus.    (University  of  Chicago 

Press,  191 2.) 
Gilbert,  G.  H.    Jesus.    (Macmillan,  1912.)    Brief  and  liberal. 
Glover,  T.  R.    The  Jesus  of  History.    (Doran,  1917.)    Brief 

and  recent;  conservative. 

*  HoLTZMANN,  O.    Life  of  Jesus.     (Macmillan,  1904.)     Standard 

work  of  the  liberal  school. 
Knowling,  R.  J.     The  Testimony  of  St.  Paul  to  Christ.     (Scrib- 
ner, 1905.) 

*  Mackintosh,    Article   on   Jesus   Christ   in   Encyclopadia   of 

Religion  and  Ethics.     (Clark,  1914.)    Admirably  done. 
Neuman,  a.    Jesus.     (Macmillan,  1906).    Brilliant  little  sketch 

by  a  liberal. 
Rhees,  R.     The  Life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.     (Scribner,   1900.) 

Brief  and  conservative. 
Sanday,  W.    Article  on  Jesus  Christ  in  Hastings^  Dictionary  of 

the  Bible.     (Scribner,  1902).    Reprinted  as  book  (Scribner, 

1905.)    Inexpensive  and  brief;  conservative. 

*  Sanday,  W.    The  Life  of  Christ  in  Recent  Research.    (Oxford 

University,  1907.)    Well  balanced,  but  not  up  to  date. 

*  Schweitzer,  A.    The  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus.    (Macmillan, 

1 9 10.)  Readable  survey  of  two  centuries  of  German  scholar- 
ship, and  brilliantly  translated  by  Montgomery;  eschato- 
logical.    Summary  in  last  chapter. 

*  Scott,  E.  F.    The  Kingdom  and  the  Messiah.    (Clark,  1911.) 

Eschatological. 
Smith,  D.     The  Days  of  His  Flesh.     (Doran,  1910.) 
Strauss,  D.  F.    The  Life  of  Jesus  Critically  Examined.     (Mac- 
millan, 1908.)    New  edition  of  a  classical  book,  but  now 
antiquated. 


l88  BOOKS  FOR  STUDY 

Streeter,  B.  M.  The  Historic  Christ:  Part  III  of  Foundations 
in  A  Statement  of  Christian  Belief  in  Terms  of  Modern  Thought 
by  Seven  Oxford  Men.     (Macmillan,  191 2.)     Eschatological. 

Weiss,  B.    The  Life  of  Christ.    (Scribner,  1909.)     Conservative. 

VIII.  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

Abbott,  L.    The  Ethical  Teachings  of  Jesus,    (University  of 

Pennsylvania,  19 10.) 
BoswoRTH,  E.  I.    Studies  in  the  Teaching  of  Jesus.    (Association 

Press,  1905.) 
Briggs,  C.  a.    The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus.    (Scribner,  1904.) 
Bruce,  A.  B.    The  Parabolic  Teaching  of  Jesus.    (Doran,  1892.) 
Bruce,  A.  B.    The  Training  of  the  Twelve.    (Doran,  1902.) 
Burton,  E.  D.,  Smith,  J.  M.  P.,  and  Smith,  G.  B.    Biblical  Ideas 

of  Atonement.     (University  of  Chicago,  1909.) 
Cone,  O.    Rich  and  Poor  in  the  New  Testament.     (Macmillan, 

1902.) 

*  Cross,  G.    What  is  Christianity?    (University  of  Chicago  Press, 

1918.) 
DoDS,  M.    The  Parables  of  Our  Lord.    (Whittaker,  1895.) 
Hall,  T.  C.    The  History  of  Ethics  within  Organized  Christianity, 

(Scribner,  19 10.) 
Harnack,  a.    What  is  Christianity?    (Putnam,  19 10.)    Liberal 

position. 

*  Hinsdale,  B.  A.    Jesus  as  a  Teacher.    (Christian  Publishing 

Co.,  1895.)    Probably  the  best  work  on  the  method  of  Jesus. 
Hughes,  H.  M.    The  Ethics  of  Jewish  Apocryphal  Literature, 

(Cully,  1909.) 
Jenks,  J.  W.    Social  Significance  of  the  Teachings  of  Jesus.    (As- 
sociation Press,  1907.) 
Kent,  C.  F.    Social  Teachings  of  the  Prophets  and  Jesus.    (Scrib- 
ner, 1917.) 
King,  H.  C.    The  Ethics  of  Jesus.    (Macmillan,  19 10.) 
Knox,  G.  W.     The  Gospel  of  Jesus.    (Houghton,  1509.) 
Lyttleton,  E.  H.    Studies  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,    (Long- 
mans, 1905.) 


BOOKS  FOR  STUDY  189 

*  Mathews,  Shailer.    The  Message  of  Jesus  to  Our  Modern  Life, 

(University  of  Chicago,  1915.) 
Mathews,  Shailer.    The  Social  Teaching  of  Jesus.    (Macmillan, 

1905.) 

*  MoFPATT,  James.    The  Theology  of  the  Gospels.    (Duckworth, 

London,  19 12.) 
Murray,  G.    Jesus  and  His  Parables.    (Clark,  19 14.) 
•Peabody,   F.   G.    Jesus  Christ  and  the  Christian  Character. 

(Macmillan,  1904.) 

*  Peabody,  F.  G.    Jesus  Christ  and  the  Social  Question.    (Mac- 

millan, 19 1 2.) 
Pell,  E.  L.    What  Did  Jesus  Really  Teach  about  War?    (Revell, 

1918.) 
PFLEn)ERER,    O.    Primitive    Christianity.    (Putnam,    1906-10.) 
Rauschenbusch,  W.    The  Social  Principles  of  Jesus.    (West- 
minster Press,  Philadelphia,  19 18.) 
Ross,  D.  M.    The  Teaching  of  Jesus.    (Clark,  1904.) 
*Selwyn,  E.  S.    The  Teaching  of  Christ.    (Longmans,  1915.) 

Eschatological. 
Smith,  F.  W.    Jesus  —  Teacher.    (Sturgis-Walton,  1916.) 

*  Stalker,  James.    The  Ethic  of  Jesus.    (Doran,  1909.) 
♦Stevens,  G.  B.    The  Teaching  of  Jesus.    (Macmillan,  19 11.) 

Liberal,  clear,  and  interesting. 
Stokes,  A.  P.    What  Jesus  Christ  Thought  of  Himself.    (Mac- 
millan, 1 9 16.) 
TrpswoRD,  H.  M.    The  Pedagogics  of  Jesus.    (Badger,  Boston, 

1916.) 
Toy,  C.  H.    Judaism  and  Christianity.    (Little,  1892.) 
Wayland,  J.  W.  Christ  as  a  Teacher.    (Stratford  Co.,  1919-) 
Wernle,  p.    The  Beginnings  of  Christianity.    (Putnam,  1903-4.) 
Extreme  example  of  the  psychological;  popular,  facile,  and 
interesting. 
Wilson,  F.  E.    Contrasts  in  the  Character  of  Christ.    (Revell, 
1916.) 


I  go  BOOKS  FOR  STUDY 

DC.  GENERAL  SUBJECTS 

♦BuRKiTT,  F.  C.  Jewish  and  Christian  Apocalypses.  (London, 
19 13.)     Eschatological. 

Carpenter,  J.  E.  The  Bible  in  the  Nineteenth  Century.  (Long- 
mans, 1903.) 

*  Charles,  R.  H.    Critical  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  a  Future  Life, 

(London,  19 13.) 

*  Charles,  R.  H.    Religious  Development  between  the  New  and 

Old  Testaments.    (Holt,  19 14.) 

*Cobern,  C.  W.  The  New  Archeological  Discoveries  and  their 
Bearing  upon  the  New  Testament.     (Funk  &  Wagnalls,  19 17.) 

Falconer,  R.  A.  The  Truth  of  the  Apostolic  Gospel.  (Associa- 
tion Press,  1904.) 

*  Goodspeed,  E.  J.    The  Story  of  the  New  Testament.    (Univer- 

sity of  Chicago  Press,  19 16.) 
Gordon,  G.  A.    Religion  and  Miracle.     (Houghton,  Mifflin,  1909.) 
Gould,  E.  P.     The  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament.    (Mac- 

millan,  1900.) 
Hall,  G.  Stanley.    Jesus  the  Christ  in  the  Light  of  Psychology. 

(Doubleday,  Page,  19 18.) 
HiLUS,  N.  D.    The  Influence  of  Christ  in  Modern  Life.    (Mac- 

millan,  1900.) 
Hunting,  H.  B.    The  Story  of  Our  Bible.     (Scribner,  19 15.) 

*  Mathews,    Shailer.    History   of  New    Testament    Times   in 

Palestine.     (Macmillan,  1908.) 
MouLTON,  R.  G.     The  Literary  Study  of  the  Bible.     (Heath,  1899.) 
MouLTON,  R.  G.     The  Bible  at  a  Single  View.     (Macmillan,  19 18.) 
Nash,  H.  S.    History  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament. 

(Macmillan,  1900.) 

*  Penniman,  Joslvh  H.    A  Book  about  the  English  Bible.    (Mac- 

millan, 1919.)    Interesting  literary  discussion;  up  to  date, 

but  moderate  in  tone. 
Rall,  H.  F.    New  Testament  History.    (Abingdon  Press,  New 

York,  1 9 14.) 
ScOTT,  E.  F.    The  Beginnings  of  the  Church.    (Scribner,  19 14.) 

Eschatological. 


BOOKS  FOR  STUDY  I9I 

Selleck,  W.  C.    The  New  Appreciation  of  the  Bible.    (University 

of  Chicago  Press,  1907.) 
Sheldon,  F.  M.    The  Bible  in  our  Modern  World.    (Pilgrim  Press, 

Boston,  1918.) 
Smyth,  J.  Paterson.    How  We  Got  Our  Bible.    Qames  Pott, 

New  York,  1899.) 
*  Smyth,  J.  Paterson.    The  Bible  in  the  Making.    Qames  Pott, 

New  York,  1914.)    Popular  and  clear. 
TiPLADY,  T.     The  Cross  at  the  -Front,     (Revell,  1918.) 
Vincent,  M.  R.    The  History  of  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New 

Testament.     (Macmillan,  1899.) 
VoTAW,  C.  W.     The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  in  Hastings'  Dictionary 

of  the  Bible.     (Scribner,  1904.) 
Wilson,  P.  W.    The  Christ  We  Forget.    (ReveU,  1918.) 


INDEX 


Allegory,  Jesus*  use  of,  44,  69  f. 
Almsgiving,  171  ff. 
Aphorisms,  Jesus'  use  of,  65  ff. 
Apocalyptic    writings,     137  f., 

142  ff. 
"Apperception,"  59  f. 
Aristotle,  112. 
Authorized  Version^  28. 

Banquets,  165  f. 
Baptism,  147. 
Barnabas,  13. 
Baruch,  87,  143. 
Beatitudes,  18. 
Beza,  27. 

Brotherhood  of  man,  95  f. 
Burkitt,  138. 

By-products,    Jesus*  teachings 
as,  156. 

Capernaum,  13,  23,  44. 

Children,  163  f. 

Christian  virtues,  iii  ff.;  and 

practice,  117  f. 
Christocentric,  22. 
Church,  145  f.,  150. 
Clement,  7. 
Complutensian,  26. 
"Congregation,**  146. 
Conversion,  iiSff. 


Daniel,  86. 
David,  143. 
Demas,  17. 
Divorce,  157  ff. 
Docetists,  25. 

Elzevir,  27. 

Enoch,  87,  129,  143. 

Epaphras,  17. 

Epigrams,  Jesus*  use  of,  65  ff. 

Epistles  of  Paul,  11. 

Erasmus,  26,  88. 

Esdras,  143. 

Ethical  theories,  106. 

Family,  161. 

Father,  God  as,  74  ff. 

Fatherhood,  attributes  of,  76  ff. 

Fiery  furnace,  132  f. 

Fourth   Gospel,   see   Gospel  of 

John. 
"Fulfilhiient,**63f.,  92f. 
Future  coming  of  Jesus,  134  ff. 

Gehenna,  132. 

God,  Jesus'  idea  of,  73  ff. 

Gospel,  12;  of  Mark,  12,  13,  14, 
IS,  32f.;  of  Matthew,  14,  15, 
16  f.;  of  Luke,  14,  15,  17  ff.; 
of  John,  20 ff.;  according  to 


193 


194 


INDEX 


Bebrews,  Ht  "Oi  ^f  Peter,     Literal  interpretation,  3  ff. 
34.  Levi,  see  Matthew,  16. 

Government,  Jesus'  attitude  to-     Logos  doctrine,  21,  22. 


Luke,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  14,  15. 

Manuscripts  of  New  Testament, 

26flF. 
Mark,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12, 13,  14, 

15,  32. 
Marriage,  157  ff. 
Mary,  mother  of  Mark,  13. 
Matthew,  7,  8,  9,  10,  ii,  14,  15. 
Moffatt,  29,  139. 

New  Testament,  in  Modern 
Speech,  28;  Twentieth  Cen- 
tury; New  Translation,  29. 

Noah,  143. 

Optimism  of  Jesus,  102  ff. 

in   Matthew,   33,   34  ff.;   as  Origen,  24. 

humanitarian,  in  Luke,  33;  Outward  action,  Jesus'  use  of, 

as  "word"  in  John,  33;  as  ^q 
Messiah,   32  f.,   33,   34,   82, 

87,    89,    134  ff.,    142  ff.;   as  Papias,  Bishop,  7,  10,  12,  16. 

Teacher,  34  ff. ;  his  character.  Parables,  44,  67  ff. 


ward,  174  ff. 

Hillel,  47- 

Historical  approach,  i  f . 
Human  nature,  Jesus'  knowl- 
edge of,  55  ff. 

Ideals,  Jesus',  106  ff. 
Ignatius,  7. 

Industrial  conditions,  173  f. 
InformaUty  of  Jesus'  teaching, 
50  f. 

Jerome,  24. 
Jerusalem,  23. 

Jesus,  as  supernatural,  in  Mark, 
32;  as  teacher  and  law-giver, 


38  f . ;  his  intuition,  56  f . 
John,  8,  9,  21  ff.,  126,  129. 
John,  see  Mark,  13. 
John  the  Baptist,  22,  44,  47. 
Josephus,  25. 
Judgment,  the,  128  ff. 
Justin  Martyr,  7,  12. 


"Passive"  virtues,  112  ff. 

Paul,  II,  13,  17,  150. 

Peter,  7,  12,  13,  16. 

Petrine  theory,  148  ff.,  150. 

Philo  Judaeus,  21,  22,  25. 

Plato,  112. 

Pliny  the  Younger,  25. 

Plutarch,  25. 
Kingdom  of  God,  32, 33, 34, 45,      PoHtics,  174  f. 
84  ff.,   96  f.,   loi,   109,   no,      Polycarp,  7. 
117,  135,  137  ff.,  142  ff.,  181.      Principles,    rather    than    pm- 


INDEX 


195 


ccpts,  154  ^M  160,  163,  164  f., 
173,  174,  177. 
"Problem,"  use  of  in  teaching, 

51  ff. 
Psychological    interpretations, 

137  f. 
Punishment,  131  ff. 

Q  (Quelle),  10. 

Reconstruction  of  life,  120  ff. 
Rejection  of  historicity,  2  f. 
Resurrection,  1245. 
Revised  Version,  28. 
Reward,  131  ff. 

Salvation,  118. 

Sanday,  138. 

Sayings  of  Jesus,  9,  12,  13,  15, 

16,  18,  32. 
Schweitzer,  138. 
Scott,  139. 
Seneca,  25. 
Sin,  99  ff. 
Social  life,  165  ff. 
Solomon,  143. 
Sonship,  79  ff.,  95  ff.;  of  Jesus, 

82  f. 
Soul,  worth  of,  97  f. 
Sources,  8  ff.,  97  f. 
Stephanus,  27. 
Suetonius,  25. 
Summary  of  Jesus*  teachings, 

29  f.,    48  f.,    71,    93,    104  f., 

123, 140, 152  f.,  177  f.,  180  ff. 
Summum  bonum,  107;  of  Jesus, 

107  ff. 

Printed  in  the  United 


Synoptic  gospels,  9,  19  f. 
S3aioptic  problem,  solutions  of, 
20. 

Tacitus,  25. 

Teaching,    Jesus*    fitness    for, 

35  ff. 
Teaching  of  Jesus,  39  f.;  aim, 

40  ff. ;  content,  42  f . ;  methods, 

43  f.,     50  ff.;     organization, 

44  f . ;  results,  46  ff. 
Texts  of  New  Testament,  26  f. 
Theocentric,  22. 

Tolstoy,  115. 

Translations,  see  Versions, 
Tyndale,  28. 
Tyrell,  138. 

Verbal  inspiration,  3  ff. 

Version,  Authorized,  28;  Revised, 
28;  King  James,  28;  Wey- 
mouth, 28;  Twentieth  Century, 
29;  Moffatt,  29. 

Vulgate,  28. 

War,  Jesus*   view  of,  116  f., 

156  f. 
Wealth,  167  ff. 
We)anouth,  28. 
Woman,  161  ff. 
WycUf,  28. 

Xenophanes,  73. 
Ximenes,  Cardinal,  26. 

Zechariah,  143. 
States  of  America 


7l'ffill?ffllllfm1Jl'i^'  ^^"^'"^7   Libraries 

1    1012  01193  8273 


Date  Due 

iiplim 

J 

h  ^  '^ 

\w*^ 

0 

m 

1 

I 

1 

1 

JL "^ 

W0 

^iftji 

f 

1 

t 

f) 

